Two-Thirds Lawsuit - Motion To Dismiss

1 AARON D.
FORD
Attorney General
2 CRAIG A. NEWBY (Bar No. 8591)
Deputy Solicitor General
3 State of Nevada
Office of the Attorney General
4 100 North Carson Street
Carson City, NV 89701-4717
5 (775) 684-1100 (phone)
(775) 684-1108 (fax)
6 cnewby@ag.nv.gov
7 Attorneys for Executive Defendants
8 IN THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
9 IN AND FOR CARSON CITY
10 THE HONORABLE JAMES
SETTLEMEYER, THE HONORABLE Case No. 19 OC 00127-1
11 JOE HARDY, THE HONORABLE HEIDI
GANSERT, THE HONORABLE SCOTT Dept. No. I
12 HAMMOND, THE HONORABLE PETE
GOICOECHEA, THE HONORABLE BEN MOTION TO DISMI~/
13 KIECKHEFER, THE HONORABLE IRA ,~J
HANSEN, and THE HONORABLE :;ft
14 KEITH PICKARD, in their official l1l.
capacities as members of the Senate of
15 the State of Nevada and individually;
GREAT BASIN ENGINEERING
16 CONTRACTORS, LLC, a Nevada limited
liability company; GOODFELLOW
17 CORPORATION, a Utah corporation
qualified to do business in the State of
18 Nevada; KIMMIE CANDY COMPANY, a
Nevada corporation; KEYSTONE CORP.,
19 a Nevada nonprofit corporation;
NATIONAL FEDERATION OF
20 INDEPENDENT BUSINESS, a
California nonprofit corporation qualified
21 to do business in the State of Nevada;
NEVADA FRANCHISED AUTO
22 DEALERS ASSOCIATION, a Nevada
nonprofit corporation; NEVADA
23 TRUCKING ASSOCIATION, INC., a
Nevada nonprofit corporation; and
24 RETAIL ASSOCIATION OF NEVADA, a
Nevada nonprofit corporation,
25
Plaintiffs,
26
vs.
27
STATE OF NEVADA, ex rel, THE
28 HONORABLE NICOLE CANNIZZARO,
Page 1 of 17
in her official capacity as Senate Majority
1 Leader; THE HONORABLE KATE
MARSHALL, in her official capacity as
2 President of the Senate; CLAIRE J.
CLIFT, in her official capacity as
3 Secretary of the Senate; THE
HONORABLE STEVE SISOLAK, in his
4 official capacity as Governor of the State
of Nevada; NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF
5 TAXATION; NEVADA DEPARTMENT
OF MOTOR VEHICLES; and DOES I-X,
6 inclusive,
7 Defendants.
8 MOTION TO DISMISS
9 Pursuant to Rule 12, Defendants STATE OF NEVADA, ex rel, THE HONORABLE
10 KATE MARSHALL, in her official capacity as President of the Senate; THE HONORABLE
11 STEVE SISOLAK, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Nevada; NEVADA
12 DEPARTMENT OF TAXATION; and NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES
13 (collectively the "Executive Defendants"), hereby seek dismissal of Plaintiffs' lawsuit.
14 This Motion is made and based upon the following Memorandum of Points and
15 Authorities, all the papers and pleadings on file herein, and any such argument that the
16 Court chooses to entertain.
17 DATED this 16th day of September, 2019.
18 AARON D. FORD
Attorney General
19
20
By: _,c=-RA~IG=-:--:--A--:.c:--1c-~==-:=--=-=c+-+:---,--
21
Deputy S citor General
22 Office of the Attorney General
100 North Carson Street
23 Carson City, NV 89701-4717
(775) 684-1100 (phone)
24 (775) 684-1108 (fax)
cnewby@ag.nv.gov
25
Attorneys for Executive Defendants
26
27
28
Page 2 of 17
1 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
2 I. INTRODUCTION AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND
3 The 2019 Legislature passed two bills that maintained existing taxes and fees at
4 existing rates from the prior fiscal year to future fiscal years. Because neither bill "creates,
5 generates, or increases" "taxes, fees, assessments and rates," each bill is constitutional. To
6 the extent there is any ambiguity requiring interpretation, this Court should interpret the
7 supermajority provision narrowly with the intent that it apply only to new or increased
8 taxes, not to the continuation of existing taxes at existing rates from one year to the next.
9 This interpretation is consistent with the history, public policy, and reason for the
10 supermajority provision, which arose from the following, infamous political promise:
11 Read my lips: no new taxes!
12 Vice President George H.W. Bush, at his August 18, 1988 speech accepting
the Republican nomination for President.
13
14 When President Bush broke this promise, it provoked backlash throughout the
15 United States. In response, governments attempted amending constitutions to require
16 supermajority votes for new taxes. Nevada's supermajority provision for new taxes that
17 arose from this backlash is the subject of this lawsuit.
18 Former Governor (then-Assemblyman) Jim Gibbons spearheaded the effort to adopt
19 the supermajority provision, modeling it on similar provisions from other states, including
20 Oklahoma. The former Governor first tried to add a supermajority provision to the Nevada
21 Constitution as an Assemblyman in the 1993 Legislature, but failed. At that time, he
22 conveyed that it "would not impair any existing revenues." See AJR 21 Legislative History
23 (1993) at 747, attached hereto as Exhibit A (emphasis added). As part of the bill
24 explanation, the provision was limited to efforts "to impose or increase" certain taxes. Id.
25 at 760.
26 Subsequently, the former Governor successfully led the effort to pass the
27 supermajority provision by initiative in the 1994 election (when he first ran unsuccessfully
28 for Governor) and the 1996 election (when he successfully ran for Congress). The initiative
Page 3 of 17
1 materials provided to Nevada voters show that the provision was intended for "raising" or
2 "increasing taxes," particularly from "new sources of revenue." See Nevada Ballot
3 Questions 1994 at Question No. 11; State of Nevada Ballot Questions 1996 at Question No.
4 11, collectively attached hereto as Exhibit B.
5 As passed, the supermajority provision added to the Nevada Constitution reads as
6 follows:
7 2. Except as otherwise provided in subsection 3, an affirmative
vote of not fewer than two-thirds of the members elected to each
8 House is necessary to pass a bill or joint resolution which creates,
generates, or increases any public revenue in any form, including
9 but not limited to taxes, fees, assessments and rates, or changes
in the computation bases for taxes, fees, assessments and rates.
10
11 NEV. CONST. art. 4, § 18(1).
12 Under significantly different circumstances, the Nevada Supreme Court had the
13 opportunity to review the supermajority provision. There, the Nevada Supreme Court
14 recognized that the supermajority provision "was intended to make it more difficult for the
15 Legislature to pass new taxes" or to turn "to new sources ofrevenue." 1 Guinn v. Legislature,
16 119 Nev. 460, 471 (2003) (emphasis added); see Exhibit B.
17 Here, this Court does not face new or increased taxes, much less a constitutional
18 crisis threatening the education of Nevada's children. Instead, the Legislature passed two
19 bills to maintain existing taxes and fees at existing rates into the next fiscal year. Each
20
21 1
The Nevada Supreme Court previously considered the supermajority provision in
the 2003 Guinn v. Legislature cases, specifically its relationship to constitutional provisions
22 prioritizing public education where the executive and legislative branches were gridlocked
23 as they related to funding almost immediately prior to the start of the school year. Guinn
v. Legislature, 119 Nev. 277 (2003) (overturned as to "procedural" and "substantive"
24 requirements analysis by Nevadans for Nevada v. Beers, 122 Nev. 930, 944 (2006)); Guinn
v. Legislature, 119 Nev. 460 (2003). This case is not the expedited one faced by the Supreme
25 Court in Guinn, both as to emergency timing or as a constitutional conflict between co-
26 equal branches of government.
Here, Plaintiffs have done nothing to expedite consideration of their alleged
27 "irreparable harm" associated with paying existing taxes at existing rates on or after
September 30, 2019 or with the dispute amongst different State Senators, notwithstanding
28
longstanding threats to file this lawsuit.
Page 4 of 17
1 bill is plainly constitU,tional because neither "creates, generates, or increases" "taxes, fees,
2 assessments and rates."

3 To the extent there is any ambiguity requiring interpretation, this Court should
4 interpret the supermajority provision narrowly in conjunction with the intent that it apply
5 only to new or increased taxes relative to the prior fiscal year. This is consistent with how
6 other states, including Oklahoma and Oregon, interpret their equivalent supermajority
7 provisions. The Legislature's interpretation under these circumstances, upon the advice of
8 its counsel, is reasonable and entitled to deference from this Court as the most responsive
9 branch to the People.2

10 Under such circumstances, Defendants seek dismissal of the case.
11 II. LEGAL ANALYSIS

12 A. Standard of Review
13 Rule 12(b) governs motions to dismiss, including this one premised on legal
14 interpretation of the Nevada Constitution. When reviewing a Rule 12(b)(5) motion, a court
15 reviews all legal conclU,sions de novo, even while recognizing all factual allegations in the
16 complaint as true and drawing all inferences in the plaintiffs' favor. BU,ZZ Stew, LLC v.
17 City of N. Las Vegas, 124 Nev. 224, 227-28, 181 P.3d 670, 672 (2008)(emphasis added). "A
18 complaint should only be dismissed for failure to state a claim if it appears beyond a doubt
19 that it could prove no set of facts, which, if true, would entitle it to relief." Szymborshi v.
20 Spring MoU,ntain Treatment Ctr., 133 Nev. 638, 641, 403 P.3d 1280, 1283 (2017) (emphasis
21 added). While generally a court may not consider matters outside the pleading for a Rule
22 12(b)(5) motion, it may take into account matters of public record, orders, items present in
23 the record of the case, and any exhibits attached to the complaint when ruling on a motion
24 to dismiss. Breliant v. Preferred Eqll,ities Corp., 109 Nev. 842, 847, 858 P.2d 1258, 1261
25 (1993).
26
27
A true and correct copy of the Legislative Counsel Bureau's May 8, 2019
2
28 memorandum is attached hereto as Exhibit C.
Page 5 of 17
1 In Nevada, the constitutionality of a statute is a question oflaw. Cornella v. JU,stice
2 CoU,rt, 132 Nev. - - , 377 P.3d 97, 100 (2016) (internal quotation marks omitted).
3 "Statutes are presumed to be valid, and the burden is on the challenging party to
4 demonstrate that a statute is unconstitutional." 3 Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).
5 In interpreting an amendment to our Constitution, courts look to rules of statutory
6 interpretation to determine the intent of both the drafters and the electorate that approved
7 it. Landreth v. Malih, 127 Nev. 175, 180, 251 P.3d 163, 166 (2011); Halverson v. Sec'y of
8 State, 124 Nev. 484, 488, 186 P.3d 893, 897 (2008). Nevada courts first examine the
9 provision's language. Landreth, 127 Nev. at 180, 251 P.3d at 166. If plain, a Nevada court
10 looks no further, but if not, "we look to the history, public policy, and reason for the
11 provision." Id.
12 Moreover, Nevada courts construe statutes, if reasonably possible, so as to be in
13 harmony with the constitution." Cornella, 377 P.3d at 100 (2016) (internal quotation marks
14 omitted). Stated differently, Nevada courts "adhere to the precedent that every reasonable
15 construction must be resorted to, in order to save a statute from unconstitutionality." State
16 v. Castaneda, 126 Nev. 478, 481, 245 P.3d 550, 552 (2010) (internal quotation marks
17 omitted). "[W]hen a statute is derived from a sister state, it is presumably adopted with
18 the construction given it by the highest court of the sister state." Clarh v. LU,britz, 113 Nev.
19 1089, 1096-97 n. 6, 944 P.2d 861, 865 n. 6 (1997) (citing Craigo v. CircU,s-CircU,s
20 Enterprises, 106 Nev. 1, 3, 786 P.2d 22, 23 (1990)).
21 Here, neither statute violates the plain terms of the supermajority provision because
22 neither "creates, generates, or increases" any public revenue from one fiscal year to the
23 next. Instead, by distinct methods, the statutes maintain existing public revenue at the
24
25
26
3 The individually named Defendants are not proper parties to this constitutional
challenge, as none are responsible for implementing the statutes for collecting taxes that
27 Plaintiffs allege cause their harm or are otherwise immune. For example, the Lieutenant
Governor performed mandatory ministerial duties to sign the bills passed by the Senate
28 pursuant to Senate Standing Rule 1. This would warrant further dismissal.
Page 6 of 17
1 same level for taxpayers and Nevada state government between fiscal years. In short, the
2 statutes comply with the supermajority provision.
3 To the extent Plaintiffs have a different interpretation, this Court should look to "the
4 history, public policy, and reason" for the supermajority provision. When reviewing this,
5 back to its origins from former President Bush's lips, there is no reasonable doubt that the
6 supermajority provision is intended to apply to new taxes relative to prior years, rather
7 than continuing existing taxes at existing rates as the 2019 Legislature did. Other states
8 with similar supermajority provisions have interpreted them the exact same way.
9 Under such circumstances, this Court should defer to the Legislature's
10 interpretation, which is consistent with the general legislative power and with how other
11 states have similarly interpreted these provisions. Ultimately, the Legislature is
12 accountable for its interpretation to the true sovereign, the People of Nevada, who will
13 decide whether this interpretation is best for future Legislatures.
14 B. The Statutes Comply with the Plain Language of the Nevada
Constitution
15
1. Senate Bill 551 Does not Create, Generate, or Increase Public
16 Revenue
17 In 1·elevant part, Senate Bill 551 repeals NRS 360.203. A true and correct copy of
18 Senate Bill 551 as enrolled is attached hereto as Exhibit D. When passed by the 2015
19 Legislature, there was no specific contemporaneous commentary at committee or during
20 floor session on what was NRS 360.203. 4 Instead, it was part of the overall 2015
21 Legislature's efforts to provide greater fiscal stability for Nevada state government,
22 specifically including public education.

23 As passed, NRS 360.203 required Taxation to calculate combined Commerce Tax,
24 Modified Business Tax, and Bank Branch Excise Tax revenues. NRS 360.203(1). The
25 repealed statute next required an apples-to-apples comparison between those revenues and
26
27 4Nevada courts may not consider post-enactment statements, affidavits or testimony
from sponsors regarding their intent. See A-NLV Cab Co. v. State Taxicab Auth., 108 Nev.
28 92-95-96 (1992).
Page 7 of 17
1 what the Economic Forum had previously estimated for the same fiscal year. NRS
2 360.203(2). If the Economic Forum overestimated revenues compared to what was actually
3 collected, nothing happened under the repealed statute. 5 Stated differently, had the
4 Economic Forum overestimated revenues for Fiscal Year 2018, the repealed statute would
5 be inapplicable by its terms. 6 If the Economic Forum underestimated revenues relative to
6 collections by more than 4 percent, the repealed statute provided a mechanism for the
7 future recalculation of MBT tax rates, such that the underestimated revenue would result
8 in a potential future decrease for the next fiscal year. NRS 360.203(2).
9 I II
10 II I
11 II I
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25 5 See Elley v. Stephens, 104 Nev. 413, 416-17 (1988)(standing requires a party to
26 suffer harm fairly traced to the challenged statute); Resnick v. Nevada Gaming Com'm, 104
Nev. 60, 65-66 (1988) (requiring ripeness rather than future potential controversies for a
27 court to have a justiciable case).
6 Plaintiffs have not argued that the Economic Forum's tax revenue projections are
28 subject to the supermajority provision.
Page 8 of 17
1 Below is a chart comparing actual versus projected revenue for the three taxes:7
2
FY 2017 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2018
3 Economic Forum Actual Economic Forum Actual
Projection Projection
4
Commerce $203,411.000 $197,827,208 $186,046,000 $201,926,513
5 Tax
MBT (After $526,971,540 $575,232,919 $525,615,000 $581,843,729
6 Tax Credits
7
Bank $2,772,000 $2,785,199 $2,789,000 $2,745,343
8 Branch
Excise Tax
9
10 TOTAL $733,154,540 $775,845,326 $714,450,000 $786,515,585
11
12 T he Economic Forum presumed a downturn in revenue from these three taxes between FY
13 2017 and FY 2018. Instead, the Modified Business Tax significantly exceeded projections
14 m both fiscal years. Had the projections been more accurate, NRS 360.203 would have
15 remained dormant.
16 Senate Bill 551 repeals NRS 360.203. See Ex. D at § 39. As argued by Plaintiffs,
17 repeal of NRS 360.203 required a supermajority vote because it eliminates a potential
18 future decrease in the MBT tax rates. See First Amended Complaint (7/30/2019) at ,r 43.
19
20
21 7
The forecast information was derived from General Fund Revenues - Economic
Forum's Forecast for FY 2017, FY 2018, and FY 2019 Approved at the May 1, 2017, Meeting,
22 Adjusted for Measures Approved by the 2017 Legislature (79th Session), available at:
23 https://www.leg.state.nv.us/Division/fiscal/Economic%20Forum/EF%20May%2020l 7%20F
_orecast%20with%20Legislative%20Adjustments%20(updated%2011-9-2017).pdf and
24 attached hereto as Exhibit E.
The actual information was derived from General Fund Revenues - Economic Forum
25 May 1, 2019, Forecast, Actual: FY 2016 through FY 2018 and Forecast: FY 2019 through
26 FY 2021, Economic Forum's Forecast for FY 2019, FY 2020, and FY 2021 Approved at the
May 1, 2019 Meeting (80th Session), available at:
27 https://www.leg.state.nv.us/Division/fiscal/Economic%20Forum/EF MAY 2019 FORE CA
ST 5-1-2019.pdf and attached hereto as Exhibit F.
28
Page 9 of 17
1 In short, Plaintiffs' constitutional claim relies on the Economic Forum's conservative
2 underestimate of combined tax revenues from the last biennium.
3 In this context, Plaintiffs' claim does not make sense. Repealed NRS 360.203(2)'s
4 potential tax rate reduction would not have been in effect until July 1, 2019 at the earliest.
5 NRS 360.203(3). Accordingly, as set forth by the Legislature's counsel in its May 8, 2019
6 memorandum, Senate Bill 551 maintains the existing tax rate and revenue structure
7 because any potential tax rate reduction was never effective as a matter of statute. Ex. C
8 at 13.
9 Under these circumstances, Senate Bill 551 does not change existing tax rates for
10 the Business Plaintiffs. Specifically, Section 37 of Senate Bill 551 makes it clear that the
11 purpose and intent was "to maintain and continue the existing legally operative rates of
12 the taxes." Ex. D. Great Basin Engineering Contractors, LLC, Goodfellow Corporation,
13 Kimmie Candy Company, and Keystone Corp. will pay the same MBT tax rate as the last
14 four fiscal years premised on the same employee wages. Because this does not create,
15 generate, or increase any public revenue in any form relative to the prior fiscal year, the
16 Legislature's passage of Senate Bill 551 complies with the plain language of the Nevada
17 Constitution. The Court should enter judgment in Defendants' favor.
18 2. SB 542 Does not Create, Generate, or Increase Public Revenue
19 Senate Bill 542 amends a June 30, 2020 sunset provision for an existing DMV
20 technology fee, extending it until June 30, 2022. A true and correct copy of Senate Bill 542
21 as enrolled is attached hereto as Exhibit G. Nothing within Senate Bill 542 creates a new
22 tax. Businesses such as the Business Defendants who have the same number of DMV
23 transactions will owe the same amount ofDMV technology fee as the last biennium, as well
24 as the first year of this biennium (unaffected by this statute).8 At most, Senate Bill 542
25 eliminates a proposed, future end to the DMV technology fee almost one year from today.
26 Because this does not create, generate, or increase any public revenue in any form relative
27
8 Arguably, Plaintiffs' harm associated with SB 542 is not yet ripe until summer 2020,
28 when the eliminated sunset provision would have previously taken effect.
Page 10 of 17
1 to the prior fiscal year, the Legislature's passage of Senate Bill 542 complies with the plain
2 language of the Nevada Constitution. The Court should enter judgment in Defendants'
3 favor.
4 C. To the Extent Plaintiffs Argue Differently, the Supermajority
Provision should be Interpreted Narrowly to Apply to "New Taxes"
5 Relative to Prior Fiscal Years, Consistent with its History, Public
Policy, and Reason for Adoption
6
1. The History, Public Policy and Reason behind the
7 Supermajority Provision is No New Taxes
8 As set forth above, the supermajority provision arose from anti-tax fervor associated
9 with President Bush's broken promise of"no new taxes." Former Governor Gibbons led the
10 Nevada charge for the supermajority provision, emphasizing its effect on new or additional
11 taxes, noting it did not apply to existing taxes. See Ex. A at 747, 760. The initiative
12 information provided to Nevada voters similarly made it clear that they intended the
13 provision for "raising" or "increasing taxes," particularly from "new sources of revenue."
14 Ex. B. The clear purpose and public policy behind the supermajority provision was to
15 prevent "new taxes."
16 Prior implementation of Nevada Economic Forum projections is consistent with the
17 clear intent for the supermajority provision to prevent "new taxes" rather than increased
18 revenues from existing provisions. Specifically, prior Economic Forum projections relied
19 upon by the Legislature for budgeting show significant increases in revenue from existing
20 taxes, including the Commerce Tax and the Branch Bank Excise Tax, presumably based
21 on Nevada's growing economy. See Ex. E & F. These projections has never required
22 supermajority approval because none creates a "new tax." To the extent this Court believes
23 it needs to look beyond the plain language of the supermajority provision, it should
24 interpret the provision relative to fiscal years, such that it can be easily determined
25 whether a tax "creates, generates, or increases" revenue. 9
26
Defendants note that there is a second supermajority provision challenge pending
9
27 before the Eighth Judicial District Court. Morency et al. v. State of Nevada ex rel. Dept. of
Education et al., Case No. A-19-800267-C (Nev. 8th Jud. Dist. Ct., August 15, 2019). There,
28 Defendants contend that elimination of certain tax expenditures for a private school
Page 11 of 17
1 2. Other States Interpret Similar Supermajority Provisions Narrowly
for No New Taxes
2
3 Nevada is not alone when attempting to interpret similar supermajority provisions.

4 For instance, in South Dakota, the supermajority provision applies to the passage of
5 certain appropriations. S.D. CONST. art. XII, § 2. However, the South Dakota Supreme
6 Court rejected challenges arguing that reappropriations require a supermajority vote,
7 noting that the constitutional provision only governs passage of the appropriation, not
8 repeal or amendment of an existing appropriation. Apa v. Butler, 638 N.W. 2d 57, 69-70
9 (S.D. 2001). Nevada's supermajority provision similarly applies only to passage of a bill,
10 with no reference to repeal or amendment of a previously approved revenue generator.
11 Nev. Const. art. IV, § 18(2).

12 In Oklahoma, the supermajority provision applies to the passage of revenue bills by
13 a three-fourths vote. OKLA. CONST. art. V, § 33. However, the Oklahoma Supreme Court
14 rejected the applicability of its supermajority provision to a bill including provisions
15 deleting the "expiration date of specified tax rate levy." Fent v. Fallin, 345 P.3d 1113, 1114-
16 17 n.6 (Okla. 2014). This is consistent with that Court's limitation of the Oklahoma
17 supermajority provision to bills whose principal object is to raise new revenue and which
18 levy a new tax in the strict sense of the word. Ohla. Auto Dealers Ass'n, 401 P.3d 1152,
19 1153 (Okla. 2017).

20 In Oregon, the supermajority provision applies to the passage of bills for raising
21 revenue by a three-fifths vote. OR. CONST. art. IV, § 25(2). However, the Oregon Supreme
22 Court rejected the applicability of eliminating a tax exemption for out-of-state electric
23 utility facilities was not subject to its constitutional supermajority provision. City of Seattle
24 v. Or. Dep't of Revenue, 357 P.3d 979, 980 (Or. 2015).
25
26 voucher program required a supermajority vote, even though the Legislature ultimately
increased the tax expenditures for the upcoming two fiscal years, resulting in decreased
27 state revenue. Defendants submit that the outcome of that case would have no effect on
this case for addressing the constitutionality of the Legislature's interpretation of the
28 supermajority provision.
Page 12 of 17
1 None of these other states would apply supermajority prov1s10n onto the
2 continuation of existing taxes and fees through the elimination of a potential future
3 recalculation clause or the elimination of a not-yet applicable sunset provision. This Court
4 should similarly interpret Nevada's provision as being inapplicable to these statutes.
5 3. The Legislature is Entitled to Deference as the Branch Most
Accountable to the People
6
7 Nevada courts construe statutes, if reasonably possible, so as to be in harmony with

8 the constitution." Cornella v. Justice Court, 132 Nev. - - , 377 P.3d 97, 100 (2016)
9 (internal quotation marks omitted). Stated differently, Nevada courts "adhere to the
10 precedent that every reasonable construction must be resorted to, in order to save a statute
11 from unconstitutionality." State v. Castaneda, 126 Nev. 478, 481, 245 P.3d 550, 552 (2010)
12 (internal quotation marks omitted). The Nevada Constitution "must be strictly construed
13 in favor of the power of the legislature to enact the legislation under it." In re Platz, 60
14 Nev. 296, 308 (1940). This is particularly true where the Legislature acts upon the opinion
15 of its Legislative Counsel. Nev. Mining Ass'n v. Erdoes, 117 Nev. 531, 540 (2001).
16 Nevada courts do this because of the significant power vested in the Legislature
17 under the Nevada Constitution, consistent with constitutional requirements for republican
18 forms of government and majoritarian rule. Specifically, the United States Constitution
19 guarantees that each State shall have "a Republican Form of Government." U.S. CONST.
20 art. IV, § 4. Nevada generally requires that "a majority of all of the members elected to
21 each house is necessary to pass every bill or joint resolution." NEV. CONST. art. 4, § 18(1).
22 Prior to the 1990s, all bills required majority support.
23 As noted by James Madison in the Federalist Papers:
24 In all cases where justice or the general good might require new
laws to be passed, or active measures to be pursued, the
25 fundamental principle of free government would be reversed, It
would be no longer the majority that would rule; the power would
26 be transferred to the minority. Were the defensive privilege
limited to particular cases, an interested minority might take
27 advantage of it to screen themselves from equitable sacrifices to
the general weal, or in particular circumstances to extort
28 unreasonable indulgences.
Page 13 of 17
1 THE FEDERALIST No. 58, at 397 (James Madison).
2 Here, the People's elected representatives in the State Senate disagree on how to
3 interpret Nevada's Constitution. Where both interpretations are reasonable and the
4 majority Legislature relied upon the specific advice of its counsel, this Court should defer
5 to the Legislature's interpretation. Even if it would not necessarily be this Court's
6 preferred interpretation, deferring to the Legislature will allow Nevada's true sovereign,
7 the People, to ultimately decide the wisdom of the 2019 Legislature's decisions.
8 III. CONCLUSION
9 This Court should dismiss Plaintiffs' case with prejudice or, in the alternative, award
10 Defendants summary judgment because the passage of Senate Bill 542 and Senate Bill 551
11 comply with Article IV, Section 18(2) of the Nevada Constitution.
13 AARON D. FORD
Attorney General
14
15
By: -=c=R-+=G~A-.-::1=!::=~:---:=-----c::-;6/"-----::-::::-=-::-,-
16
Dep uty icitor Gener
17 Office of the Attorney General
100 North Carson Street
18 Carson City, NV 89701-4717
(775) 684-1100 (phone)
19 (775) 684-1108 (fax)
cnewby@ag.nv.gov
20
Attorneys for Executive Defendants
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Page 14 of 17
1 AFFIRMATION
2 The undersigned does hereby affirm that the preceding document DOES NOT
3 contain the social security number of any person.

5 AARON D. FORD
Attorney Gener
6
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Page 15 of 17
1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
2 I hereby certify that I mailed by United States, First Class, the foregoing on the 16th
3 day of September, 2019, including service upon the following counsel of record:
4 Karen A. Peterson, Esq.
Justin M. Townsend, Esq.
5 ALLISON MacKENZIE, LTD.
402 North Division Street
6 Carson City, Nevada 89703
7 Attorneys for Plaintiffs
8
9 By:
S ra Geyer, Employee of the Office
10 of the Attorney General
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Page 16 of 17
INDEX OF EXHIBITS
1
2 EXHIBIT NUMBER OF
EXHIBIT DESCRIPTION
No. PAGES
3
A AJR 21 Legislative History (1993) at 747 18
4
B Guinn v. Legislature, 119 Nev. 460, 471 (2003) 8
5
C
Legislative Counsel Bureau's May 8, 2019 24
6 Memorandum
7 D Senate Bill 551 as enrolled 33

8 Economic Forum's Forecast for FY2017, FY2018,
E and FY 2019 Approved at the May 1, 2017 8
9 Meeting
10 Economic Forum May 1, 2019, Forecast Actual:
FY2016 through FY2018, and Forecast: FY 2019
11 F through FY 2021, Economic Forum's Forecast for 8
FY 2019, FY 2020, and FY 2021 Approved at the
12 May 1, 2019 Meeting
13 G Senate Bill 542 as enrolled 1
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Page 17 of 17
EXHIBIT A
DETAIL LISTING TODAY'S DATE:Feb. 24, 1994
FROM FIRST TO LAST STEP T!ME ; 3:44 pm
NE L I $ LEG. DAY:93 Regular
PAGE 1 OF l
21
I I
By Gibbons TAXATION
Proposes to amend Nevada constitution to require two-thirds
majority of each house of legislature to increase certain
existing taxes or impose certain new taxes. (BDR C-166)
Fiscal Note: Effect on Local Government: No. Effeot on the

State or on Industrial Insurahce: No.
03/05 25Read first time. Refer~ed to committee on

Ta~~tion.
To printer.
03/08 26 From printer. To committee.
03/08 26 Dates discussed in committee: ,5L4, 5/20 (DP}
(* = instrument from prior session)
C Z,1
A..T.R. zi
ASSEMB[,Y JOINT RESOLUTION No, 21-ASSEMBL):'MEN' GIBBONS, MARVEL,
ERNAUT, SCHERER, GREGORY, HUMK6, HELLER, REGAN, B:ETTR!CK,
AumJSTJNE, CARPENTBR, TIFFANY, LAMBEP.1', MCGAUGHEY, SCI-INEIDER,
BONAVENTURA, PETRAK> COLLINS, HALI..BR, SEO~RBLOM AND WENDELL
WlLLTAMS
MARCH 5, l993
R~ferred to Committee on Taxation

SUMMARY-Proposes to 11mcnd Nevada constltuhon to require two-thirds majority of cn~h
house of lo~isJaturo lo lncraaso C<)rtain existing taxes or Impose certain new
taxos. (BDR C-166)
FISCAL NOTB: Effect on Local Govctttmont: No,
Effect on tho S1a1c or on Il\duscnal lnsuranca: No.
tXl'Z.NM.TION-Mtll1r In /Ioli&:< ff new: m~lltr In brntkm / J ,s mo1,MI t~ be onullcd
ASSEMBLY JOINT RESOLUTION-Proposing to amend the constitution of thr.i Sta10 of

Nevada lo req111re an ~ffitmativc. vote of not fower lhan two-thirds of Ifie member~ of
oach houso of tho legislature 10 !ncreaso certain cxrsttng tuxes or impose cona[n new
t"xc,,,
1 RESOLVED BY 'I'HB ASSEMBLY AND SENATE OF THE' STATE OF NEVADA,
2 JOINTLY, That section 18 of article 4 of the constitution of the State of Nevada
3 be amended to read as follows:
4 [Sec:J Sec. 18. 1. Every bill, except a bill placed on a consent calendar
5 adopted as provided fn [this section 1 shall] subsection 3, must be read by
6 sections on three several days, in each House> unless in case of emergency,
7 two th,rds of the Bouse where such bill [may be] is pending shall deem it
8 expedient to dispense with this rule (; l>\ll the] The reading of a bill by
9 sections, on its final passage; shall in no c11se be dispensed with, and the vote
10 on the final passage of every bill or joint resolution shnll be taken by yeas and
11 nays to be entered on the journals of each House . (i a11dJ Ex.cept as orhmwlse
12 provl(/ed in subsection 2, a majority of all the members elected to each house
13 [, shall be} is necessary to pass every bill or joint resolution, and all bills or
14 joint resolutions so passed, shall be signed by the presiding officers of the
15 respective Houses and by the Secietary of the Senate and clerk of the
16 Assembly.
17 2. Except 11s othenvlse provided 111 this s11bsectw11, an ajfimwtive vote of
18 not fewer them two-tltirds of the members elected to each house Is 11ecessmy to
19 pass a bill or ;olnt resol11tlon w!ttclI mcreMes or imposes m1y /n.,r, in any
20 form, based upon:
21 (a) The value of real property;
Z2 (b) The rettul sale or use in this srate of ra11g1ble personal ptoperty,
1 (c} Tire receipts, income, as.refs) eapikd StMk or number ofemployees of a
i business; including (l bustnes.9 engaged tn gaming;
3 (d) The net proceeds of minerals extracted or any other net proceeds of
4 mlnt11g;
S (e) The volume, welglrt or alca!zolia content of liquor lirtported, possessed,
6 stored or sold in this state; or
7 (j) The number or weight of cigarettes or any other tobacco product pur-
8 chased, possessed or sold in this state.
9 The requirement of thz's subsection does not apply (o a fFJe wlrlch ls imposed ou
10 the right to use 01· dispose ofproperty, to pursue a business or occ11pation or
11 to exercise a privilege if the pnma,y pu,pose of the fee is ro reimburse the
12 state for the cost ofregulatmg an acttvtty and not to raise the public revenue.
13 3. Each House may provfde by rule for the creatton of a consent calendar
14 and estabhsh the procedu.re fot· the passage of uncontested bills ..
@
MINUTES OF MEEXING
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON TAXATION
Sixty-seventh Session
May 4t 1993
The Assembly Committee on Taxation was ca.lJ.ed to otcter by

Chairman Robert ID. Price at 1,25 p,m., Tuesday, May 4, 1993, in
Room 332 of the Legislative auilding, Carson City, Nevada.
Exhibit A is the Meeting Agenda, Exhibit B !a the Attendance
Roster-.
COMMITTEE M»lMBERS PRESENT,

Mr, Robert E, Price, Chairman
Mrs. Myrna T. Williams, Vice Chair-man
Mr, Rick c. Sennett
Mr. Peter G. mrnaut
Mr. Ren L, Haller
Mra. Joan A. Lambert
Mr. John w. Marvel
Mr. Roy Neighbors
Mr. John B, Regan
Mr. Michael A, schneicter
Mr. Larry L. Spitler
COMMITTEE MmMBBRS ABSENT,

Mr, PeteL G. IDrnaut (mxcused)
Mr, John B. Regan (Excused)
Mr. Michael A. Schneider {Excused}
GUEST LSGISLATORS PRESE1f%r
None
pTAFF MEMBffiRS PRESEtn'.r
ML, Ted Zuend, Deputy Fiscal Analyst, Legislative Counsel

Bureau
OTJ:JERS PRESENT:
Brian c. Harris, Oovernor Miller's Office
Michael J. Griffin, CPA, Deputy commissioner, Nevada
Department of Insurance
Marie H. Soldo, representing Sierra Health services
Robert R. Barengo, representing Burnana Insurance of Nevada
Assembly Cornm1 ttee on Taxation
Tuesday, May 4, 1993
Page1 2
James L. Wadhams, r;-epreaenting the American Insurance

Association and Nevada !ndependent Insurance Agents
Assao1ation
Carole Vilardo, Nevada Taxpayers Association
Steve Stucker, Laughlin Associates, Inc.
Lewis Laughlin, testifying on behalf of the Nevada
Association of Independent Businesses
Don Merritt, a Nevada citizen
Jim Fontano, a Carson City resident
Bonnie James, ~epresent1ng the Las Vegas Chamber of
conur,erce
Ned Air, a Nevada citizen
Chairman Price opened the hearing on AB 331 continuing testimony
ftom the Thursday, April 29, 1993, meeting.
ASS1i1MB;LY BILL 331 ... ReqUires annual pi;-epayment of tax on
insurance premiums~ (BDR 57-1714)
Brian c. Barris, Governor Miller's Office, spoke 1n support of
AB 3;:i1. Mr. Harris indicated he hsd been working With
representatives of the industry hopefully to clear up some of
the problems with AB :331. Mr. Harris provided committee members
with a copy of a proposed amendment to AB 331 attached hereto
marked E~hibit c.
Mr. Harris pointed out Commissioner Rankin informed him on page
l Of the proposed amendment (Exhibit C) subsection 2, which had
been deleted, needed to be included.
Mr. Harris iterated the new subsection 2 listed in italics
provided for the prepayment of the tax to be paid in two
portions on March 1st and June 15th of each year. Mr. Marris
walk the conunittee th~ough the amendment section by section.
Michael J. Griffin, CPA, Deputy Commissioner, Nevada Department
of Insurance, responded to a question explaining subsection 6 of
the p~opoaed amendment (mxhibit C). He conveyed if an 1nsurer
was one day late, the interest would be one~thirtieth of the 1.s
percent.
M~. Spitler asked for clarification with regard to an
overpayment. Mr. Griffin articulated if an insu.ret' made an
overpayment, the overpayment would be a direct credit against
tne estimated tax liability the next calendar year. Mr. Griffin
responded to another question stating the business did not have
the option of having the overpayment returned, it had to be
applied against future tax liability. He expanded stating if
Assembly committee on Taxation
Pages 11
Vice Chairman Williams closed the hearing on AB 331,

Vice Chairman Williams opened the hearing on AJR 21.
ASSEMBLY ~O!NT REBOLUT~ON 21 -
• Proposes to amend Nevada constitution to require two-
thirds majority of each house of legislature to
increase certain existing taxes or impo$e certain new
taxes. (BDR C-166)
Ted Zuend, Deputy Fiscal Analyst, Legislative Counsel Bureau,
provided committee members with a Bill filxplanation for AJR 21
attached hereto marked ID~hibit 0.
James A, Gibbons I Assembly District 25, spoke as the prime
sponsor of AJ~ 21 ~hich proposed to amend the Nevada
Constitution to require a two-thirds majority vote in each house
of the legislature to incr-ease certain existing taxes or to
impose certain new taxes.
Mr. Gibbons commented AJR 21 was introduced with the idea Gf
public confidence in mind. He stated the public confidence in
the 1egislatt1re and the legislative pr:ocess was at an all-time
low. EleGted officials were at the bottom of the wr-ung on the
ladder of public confidence. Mr. Gibbons believed the answer to
the problem of public confidence was that the leg!slature needed
to focus on the actual needs of the public rather than the wants
of the public. That would r-eguire a transformation of the
thought process and a transfo~mation that would make the
legislatur:e focus mor-e on the r-esponsible utilization of the
taxpayer's money.
Mr. Gibbons said it was clear to him that the gover-nment did not
have a funding problem, but a spending pr-oblem. Nevadans wanted
public service but did not want to pay for wasteful government.
The issue was one of perception and confidence, pe~ception the
legislators wastefully spend the public• s money. The pUbl1c
lacked the confidence and believed the legislators would raise
taxes to cove~ the sins.
Mr. Gibbons iterated the concepts of economics eaict taxes always
reduded the amount of money that would have been used by the
private aactor to increase production and thus employment,
conijequsntly yielding or fueling the gross national product and
increasing over:all standards of 11 ving. Governments wasted
money through ineff1ciency, The pr-oblem would not be solved by
better p8ople, by better management, by better systems or by
more money because the pr-oblem was a structural problem in
Assembly Committee on taxation
Tuesday, May 4 1 1993
Page 1 12
government and the incentives in government were skewed against

the public interest.
Mr. Gibbons asserted thece were two alternative approaches to
balancing government budgets when spending exceedeci taxation.
The conventional wisdom was first to reduce aerv1cee o~ increase
taxes, however, Mr. Gibbons suggested there was a third way and
that was use government money more wisely and more efficiently,
It was a simple household and business concept anct strategy 1
when the income was not there, the expenses should be decreased,
Mr. Gibbons stressed AJij 21 amended the Nevada Constitution to
require bills providing for a general tax 1ncrease be passed by
a two-thirds majcri ty of both houses of the legislature. The
resolution would apply to property taxes, sales and use taxes,
business taxes based on income, receipts, assets, capital stock
or number of employees, taxes on the net proceeds of mines and
taxes on liquor and cigarettes.
Mr. Gibbons explained AJ.R 21 was modelled on constitutional
pr-ovisions which ware in effect in a number of other states.
Some of the provisions were adopted Lecently in response to a
growing concern among voters a.bout increasing tax bu~dens and
some of the other provisions dated back to earlier times.
M~. Gibbons described the provisions in the other states, In
Artzona &ny bill that provided for a net increase in revenues
had to be passed by a two-third majority vote of each house, A
veto of a tax bt11 could be ove~ridden by tnree-fourths
majority, !n Arkansas any bill to increase property, excise
privilege or personal income taKes had to be passed by a three"
fourths majority vote. Mr. Gibbons cont1nuect illustrating an
amendment had recently been enacted to the California
Constitution requiring a two-thirds majority vote in each house
for new taxes and tax increases and prohibited new taxes on
property, sales or transactions involving ~eal prope~ty. Mr,
Gibbons 1 terated in Colorado the legislature could, in an
eme~gency, increase taxes by a two-thirds vote in each house.
The tax increases had to be submitted to the people for approval
at the next election. The same provisions also imposed strict
spending limits on state government. Mr. Gibbons revealed in
Delaware an increase 1n a tax or fee had to be approved by a
three-fifths majority of. each house. Mr. Gibbons se.!ld the
Flo~ida const1tut1on required bills that increased the income
tax to more than 5 percent of net income had to be approved by
a. three-fifths major1 ty of each house. In Louisiana a two ...
thirds majority waa required. In Mississippi bills for the
assessment of real property had. to receive a three-fifths
Assembly Committee oh Taxation
Page: 13
majority in each house. In Oklahoma the constitution required

revenue bills had to be approved by three-fourths of the members
of each house. South Dakota requir~ct a two-thirda majority for
bills increasing income sal~s and property taxes. Mr. Gibbons
a aid in Delaware in order to secure the confidence of many
companies i:-esiding thel:'e, a two-thirds majority was required in
each house to amend its incorporation law. r111nois required a
three-fifths major-ity to pass a law affecting cities with home-
rule.
Mr. Gibbons believed a provision r~r:;iuiring an extr-aorctinary
majority was a device used to hedge or protect cer-ta1n laws
which he believed should not be lightly changed. AJ~ 21 ~ould
ensure greater stability and preserve certain statutes from the
constant tinkering of transient majorities,
Mr. Gibbons addressed some of the anticipated objections. some
w111 claim AJR 21 would deprive the state of revenues necessary
to provide essential state s~rvices. Mr. Gibbons conveyed tbat
waa not the case. AJR 21 would not impaiJ;" any existing
revenues. It was not a tax rollba~k and did not impose rigid
caps on taxes or spending. Mr. Gibbons thought it would not be
ctiffioult to obtain a two-thirds majority if the need for new
revenues was clear and convincing. AJR 21 would not hamstring
state govebnment or prevent state government from responding to
legitimate t1scal emergencies.
Mr. Gibbons examined the voting record for evary new tax and
increase which ~ould have been affected by AJR 21 for the last
th~ee decades. Mr. Gibbons found 1n most instances the bills
obtained a two-thirds majority vote even though a simple
majority was required. He retarred to an example of research
perfo~med. illustrating the voting record on bills, a copy of
which is attached hereto marked Exhibit J!!. Exhibit E
illustrated in all but a few instances the tax inc~eases were
passed with more than the two-thirds requirement.
Mr. Gibbons concluded by saying the measure did not propose
government do less, but actually AJR 21 could permit government
to do more. AJR 21 was a Simple moderate measure that would
bl:'ing greater steJ::>il1ty to Nevada's tax systems, whlle still
allowing the flexibility to meet real fiscal needs. Mr. Gibbons
u~ged the committee's approval of AJR 21,
Mr-. Spitler asked Mr:'. Gibbons in his research if the other
states required similar 1eg1slat1on for approval of a state
budget, or- if the at ate remained with a simple major! ty to
approve a budget and the two-thirds or three-fourths majority to
As$erobly Committee on Taxation
Page: 14
approve the funding mechanism, Mr. Gibbons said his research

did not focus on the approval process of the budget. Mr-.
Gibbons said he would have it resear-ched and produce the
information for Mr. Spitler.
Mr. Spitle~ articulated if one looked at empowerment and on one
hanct a $1mple majority oeclarect what the budget should be anct on
the other hand e. auper mi;l.jori ty declared the funding mechanism,
it was actually empowering a smaller group of people n~t to fund
the budget. Mt. Gibbons communicated he would have ta do some
more reaearch before he could g1 ve an inf or-med answer. Mr.
Gibbons b~lieved the two should go hand in hand.
Mr. Spitler asked if the other state$ actually spent less since
the imposed legislation. Mr. Gibl:>ons ar-ticulated with the depth
of research requit"ed to answer the question, Mr. Gibbons did not
possess that sort of detail,
M~s. Williams asked Mr.. Gibbons if the states he cited had an
income tax. Mr, Gibbons said South Dakota and Florida did not
have an income tax. Mrs. w1111ams conveyed when there was an
income tax it changed the considerations considerably.
Mrs, Williams was compelled to po.:Lnt out the Ways and Means
Committee constantly heard about the waste in government. She
suggested the Ways and Mean$ committee was not looking at waste
or- wants, but looking at the needs dc-iven by extraordinary
growth that far e~ceeded any other place in the country. There
were structural p~oblems other states were not faced with. She
pointed out many of the other states mentioned had decreasing
populations and d1d not have the same demands. Mr.s. Williams
would like to see the waste identified. Mrs. Williams said it
was incumbent upon people who thought there was waste to sit in
the hearings, listen to the testimony, understanct the budgete
and what the numbeI'S meant and then make a determination on
whether it was waste or- want and not need. Mrs. Williams agr:eee\
w:L th Mr. Gibbons in that Nevada neected major structural and
policy changes.
Mr:-s.Williams asked Mr. Gibbons if he thought AJR 21 could
possibly inhibit st~u¢tu~al change by requtting a supe~
majority. Mr. Gibbons respectfui1y disagreed and said
structural change to him meant incentives built into the
government st~ucture. AJ'R 21 dict just the opposite and forced
the legislature in the decision process to make the ~tructural
changea in government itself. Mrs, Williama pointed out the
fli~ side of the coin revealed a minority of people could rnake
sute prograaij would not occur and change would not occur. Mrs.
Assembly Committee on ~axation
Page: 15
Williams said there were always people who wel:'e rer,31stent to

change. The fact needed to be considered a small minority of
people could blockade the ability to move forward and change
policy. Mr. Gibbons surmised that was the one avenue that
raised a flag in tne issue, whather or not one actdreesed it from
the minority standpoint of being able to say no versus the super
majority required to say yes on a tax b1ll,
Mt". Neighbors only had a problem with the concept that the
mino~ity might be able to tell the majority exactly what to do.
He added none of the other states Mr. GiPPons listed had the
gt'oWth problems Nevada had. Mr. Neighbors saw one of the
problems as tE,lling everyone 11 we need to diversify" and invite
people into the state and than turn arounct to local government
and. .say "now you provide the service."
Mr-. Gibbons again addl:'essed the issue a two-thirds majority
allowed for a minority. Mr. Gibbons stressed the pur-pose of AJR
21 was to identify true tax needs. B.e referred to mxhibi t m
stating it was a very rare instance that only less than two-
thirds majority vote in both houses waa accomplishecL That
required the legislators to find the broad support by
identifying the need fo~ the tax. The vote in Exhibit m showed
90 to 100 percent of the legislators, in a majority of the
times, felt compelled to raise taxes. M~. Gibbons stressed to
Mr. Neighbors Florida was indeed a growing state. The demands
in Florida, in terms of growth in senior citizens which drove
Florida's budget, probably exceeded the state of Nevada 1n terms
of dollar requirements.
Mrs. Williams pointed out Flor-ida probably collected more in
taxes to start with. Floricta's tax rates were higher, the
propeJ:"ty taxes were higber generating mot"'e J:"evenue. Mr. Gibbons
said Florida also did not have 87 pe~cent of the state owned by
the federal government, so Florida's property ta~es brought in
a lot more revenue. Mr. Gibbons said Nevada based its p~operty
tax on 13 percent of the state and expected that to run the
whole state.
M~. Marvel referred to mxhibit Estating last session was the
only time th~ two-thirds majority would have made a difference,
and it was somewhat fictitious because of ths fair share issue.
Mr. Gibbons said that was e~actly right, and additionally there
was one measu~e that would have required only one more vote to
make it two-thirds in the Assembly. Mr. Mar-vel $a.id in speaking
in terms Of reality many of the Washoe county people voted
against any tax because of the fai~ share 1seue.
Assembly Committ~e on Taxat1on
1?age: 15
Steve Stucker, Laughlin Associates, Inc., spoke in favor of AJR

21. Be it~rated Laughlin Associates, Inc., was resident agent
for some 5,000 corporations in Nevada. Part o:t: Laughlin
Associates' business involved the selling of Nevada to
businesses in other states. He said many of the businesses did
contribute to the tax base in Nevada, many of which did not
impact the infrast~ucture or seLvices provided by Nevada.
Mr. Stuckar said many of the businessmen he spoke with were
concerned about the stability of the tax structure in Nevada and
the appeasement of special interests. Be realized some taxes
were necessary to provide governmental services, but those which
were good for Nevqcta as a whole ought to be the ones that were
considered and not those benefitting the larger special
inter-eats.
Mr. Stuoket felt the passage of A,JR 21 would ensure that a tax
was not only necessary, but also would benefit what was
perceived to be the vast majority of Nevadans if a two-thirds
majority was required. lt would also minimize fluctuations in
the tax structure.
Mr-. Stucker expressed the concern of the businesses was the
stability to the tax Picture in Nevada. It would allow the
businesses to make a little more informed judgments as to
whether to move to Nevada as opposed to somewhere else. It haQ
been mentioned the general perception among citizens, as well as
those businesses, bu~eaucraoy did not live within its means and
the easiest thing to do wae to increase taxes rather than to
curb spending. He thought AJR 21 would g:tve that message.
Laughlin Associates urged the committee's support of AJR 21,
In response to a question from Mr, Spitler, Mr. Stucker said it
waa not just perception that d~ew the bus1nesses to Nevada, but
whether the tax base was stable without constant fluctuations.
M~. Stucker iterated for Mr. Spitler that Laughlin had a board
of directors and was incorporated. Mr. Stucker did not know if
Laughlin required a two-thirds vote on authori~ing expenditures.
Mr. Stucker advised Mr. Spitle~ when Laughlin's board voted it
was spending Laughlin' s own money, Mr. Spitler countered
stating when he voted he did not believe he was spending someone
else' a money, but indeed his own as well. Mt"s, Williams
clarified all of the legislators were taxpaye~s as well and we~e
subject to the same unhappy circumstances as everyon(3 else.
Lewis Laughlin testified on behalf cf the Nevada Association of
Independent Businesses {NAIB) in support of AJR 21. NAIB was
765 small independent businesses employing in e~cess of 10 1 000
Assembly Committee on Taxation
Page: 17
employees in Nevada. Those businesses and the people that

wor-ked for the bu$inesses over-whelmingly supportec:l the
propoa:I. tion that taking money out of their pocket$ through
inc~eased taxes or new taxes should not be easy and only oone
when it was absolutely clea~ly and convincingly necessary for
the good. of all of the people of Nevada and not just some
particular powerful special interest o~ bureaucracy.
Mr. Laughlin conveyed the pei:-ception existed on the part of
independent business people and on the part of the taxpayers at
large that sometimes thei~ money was not taken seriously enough
by the government. By passing AJR 21, whether or not it was a
perceived problem or the real probl.em, government would be
responding to the needs and the desires of the people to take
their money seriously. NAIB supported the pr-opos:L t1on there
should be some form of tax stability. Thsre had been many
ch$ngea in Nevada's tax polioy. Nevada had not had a tax policy
and hopefully passing AJR 21 before new ta~es ware implemented
might force the issue of implementing something stable for tax
policy.
Mr. Laughlin said if AJR 21 was passed the prospect of taking
more money out of Nevadans' pockets would be less easy and less
tempting ta those who would benef1 t by doing so. He stated
Nevada would actually need "need" for the money as opposed to
"greed" that was contained in certain budgets. Mrs. Williams
inter:Jectact since there were so many members of the money
committee that served on the Taxation Committee/ she asked Mr.
Laughlin to provid~ a list of the budgets that contained "greed"
and not "need... Mr. Laughlin said he would be happy to send a
list es well as suggestions on how to save money in the state
budget process. Mr. Laughlin suggested conunon sense indicated
there was some waste in government.
Mr. Laughlin 1t~ratect in a ten year period from 1980 to 1990 tax
c-evenues in Nevacta increased by 190 percent while revenue
increased by only 50.1 percent. Tax revenue exceacted Nevada's
growth by 397 pet'c.ent. Ml', Laughlin urged the committee's
support for AJR 21.
Mr. Zuenct responded to Vice Chairman Williams stating a study
was performed for the Nevada Resort Association by Grant
Thornton that cited something to the effaet (With ragarct. to
sales and property taxes only) each new res1ctent generated
approximately $6,000 in new services, but initially only paid
$900 or $11000 in taxes. Mr. Laughlin said it was important to
note that the study did not include many fees paid that went
into the gsneral revenue. Vice Chairman Williams stated if the
,..,I:).,/ l
Aaaembly Committee on Taxation
Tuesday1 May 41 1993
l?aga: 18
new ~esidents generated the ~evenue commensurate with moving in,

Nevada would not have to be passing bond !$sues.
Mr. Laughlin informed ~ommittee membera that a two-thirds vote
was not necessary tor expendi tun~s of functQ within Laughlin
Associates. Mr. Laughlin said within the framework of Laughlin
Associs.te,s the Board of Directors set the general policy and
framewor:-k fo:r:- the off ice ts. Laughlin focused on )Jottorn-line
~esults. If the bottom.line results came in, the money would be
$pent, but if the bottom-line results did not come in, then the
money would not be spent.
Don Merritt, a Nevada citizen, testified in support of AJE 21.
Mr. Merritt said the committee had a wonde~ful opportunity to
demonstrate to the people of Nevada the committee's concern for
money. He iterated knowing two-thirds majority was required in
ooth houses to increase taxes, true need would be adct~essed.
Mr. Merritt indicated he would not oppose a tax increase if it
was absolutely necessary and would be willing to pay his share.
He stated there were times -when temporary taxes wet'e put in
place and he oelieved the tsmpo~ary taxes were still in place
and yet there were current budgetary pro:Ol~ms. Mr. Merritt
u~ged the committee to vote in favor of A.!R 21,
Jim Fontano, a Catson City resident, voiced concern with ~egard
to taxation and the perception of the citizens with the
government. Mr. Fontane testified in suppo~t of AJR 21. Mr.
Fontano believed passing AJR 21 would assist with the perceptioh
of the gove~nment the citi~ens bad. Ee believed the passing of
AJR 21 would show some of the citizens the gover:nment wa.a
concerned,
Mr. Fonteno echoed some of the testimony previously heard and
adde~ most citizen$ would agree to go along with a tax increase
if there was a real need. Mr. Fonteno offered his support fa~
AJR 21.
Carole Vilardo, Nevada. Taxpayers Association ( NTA) , testi:eied in
support of AJR 21. She echoed most of the testimony already
p~esented to the committee. The NTA supported the bill because
s1nce 1988 ther-e had been the need ta accomplish structural
fiscal reform, both tax~side and budget-side and AJR 21 was just
one element in creating tax structu~al fiscal reform.
Bonnie James, representing the Las Veg&s Chamber ~f Commerce,
voiced the Chamber's support for AJR 21. She said most of the
citizens did not realize most of the taxes passed out of
committee had in fact passed with a two-thi~ds majority vote.
Assembly Committee en Taxation
Page: 19
Ned Air, a Nevada citizen, strongly supported AJR 21. Mr. Air
said he would like to use AJB 21 as a tool to entice businesses.
Ms. Air addressed Mra. Williama ooroments with regard to waste
and agreed there were many problems that needed to be met and he
sympathized, however, when he d~ove down a street and saw three
guys sitting arounct a hols talking while one guy waa in the hole
digging, he perceived that as wast~. Mr. Air relayed a story
that he believed demonstrated waste, Mr. Air encouraged. the
committee to do what was needed to gain a better perception f~om
the public. Mr. Neighbors said it was Mt'. Air's pero~ption when
he drove pass a manhole the employees were wasting time I but
OSHA ~equirements might state the~e had to be a person standing
above the manhole. He pointed out 1t could also be perception
on the part of the citizen.
Vida Chaicman Williams closed the hea~ihg on AJR 21.
there being no further business to come oefore conunittee, the
meeting was adjourned at 3130 p.m.
153
A.. J .. R~ 21
BILL EXPLANATION
HEARING DATE: May 4, 1993
SlJMi«ARY--Proposes to amend Nevada constitution to require two-thirds majority of

each house of legislature to increase certain exist1ng taxes or impose certain
new taxes.
Proposes to amend section 18 of article 4 of the Nevada constitution to require
a two-thirds majority of each house of the legislature to impose or increase any
of the following taxes:
1. Property taxes.
2, Sales and use taxes.
3. Business taxes based upon receipts, income, assetsy capital stock
or the number of employees.
4. Net proceeds of minerals taxes.
5. Excise taxes on liquor.
6. Excise taxes on cigarettes.
Specifically excludes fees that are used to directly regulate an activity and
not to raise revenue from the requirement.
AJR21BE: TAZ/tc
ASSV TAX Bl:
1991 ~~111HLY
BILL NO, YES NO A .t YES NO A f
Aa 303 27 13 2 64.3 13 a 0 61.9
BAT
AO 577 28 14 0 66.7 16 5 0 76 2
BAT
AB 685 34 7 0 81.0 21 0 0 100.0

OPEN-
$PAC~
SB 601 42 0 Q 100.0 21 0 0 100.0
POLICE
PROTECT.
SB 112 41 0 l 97.6 21 0 0 100.0
TAANSP
1989 ASSEl*lLY 1989 SENATE

BILl NO.
YE$ NO A t YES IIO A .f
AB 940 42 0 0 100.0 21 0 0 100.0
GENERA·
TlON
AB 704 25 17 a 59.5 12 8 0 57 1
INSUR·
ANCE
1987 ASSEMBLY 1987 SEW\TE

DILL NO, YES NO A • .t YES 00 A .t
AB 85 41 0 1 97.6 21 0 0 100.0
BEEr
1986 ASSE!i8LY 1985 SEIIATE

8lLL NO. YES NO A .r YES NO A .t
SB 382 41 0 l 97.6 !l 10 0 52.4
SB 203
AS 555 40 0 2 95,2 20 0 0 96 2
AB 18 41 1 0 97 6 21 0 0 100.0
M 556 40 0 2 95.2 20 0 0 95,2
397
/11.l. 39 2 0 92.9 19 0 0 90.5
M 325 41 a 1 97.6 21 0 0 100 0
AS 688 39 1 2 92.9 2l 0 0 100,0
N3 502 41 0 0 97.6 20 0 0 96 2
NH# 42 0 0 100.0 20 0 0 95.2
LVSTOCK
&SHEEP
1983 ASSalllY 1983 SENATE

Blll. NO. YES NO A ~ YES 00 A X
SB 445 37 5 0 88.l 19 0 1 90.5
A8191 40 2 0 96.2 20 0 1 9!i.2
A8 371 4Q 2 0 95,t 21 0 0 100.0
SS 97 39 3 0 92.9 19 0 2 90.5
A8 496 42 0 0 100,0 21 a 0 mo.a
ke ~u.
CON1 C,
SB 170 39 2 1 92.9 21 0 0 100.0
R(X)f
M 256 42 0 0 100.0 20 0 l 96.2
Roo-1
7& /
MINUTES OF .MEETING
ASSElMBLY COMMITTIDE ON TAXATION
Sixty-seventh Session
I
May 20, 199:3
The Assembly Committee on Taxation was called to orcter by

Chairman Robert E. Price at 1130 p.m., Thursday, May 20, 1993,
in Boom 332 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada.
mxhihit A is th~ Meeting Agenda, Exhibit Bis the Attendance
Roster.
GOl!fflITTlllE MEMBERS PRESENT:

Mr. Robert E. Price, Chairman
Mr. Bick c. Bennett
Mr. P~t$r G. Ernaut
Mr. Ken L. Haller
Mra. Joan A. Lambert
Mr. John W. Ma~vel
Mr. Roy Neighbors
Mr. John B. Regan
Mr~ Michael A, Schneider
( Mr. tarry t. Spitler
~01';{MIT~EE MEMBERS ABSENT:

Mrs. Myrna T. Williams, Vice Chairman (Excused)
GUmST LEGISLATOBS PRESEN'r:

None
STAFF MEMBENS PBESENT1
Mr. Ted zuenctt Deputy Fiscal Analyst, Legislative counsel
Bureau
None
Following roll call, Chairman Price opened the he$r1ng on AB

561.
ASSEMBLY BILL 567 - Provides manner of aaseeaing valu~ of
ce~tain possesaory interests for imposition
of property taltes. (BOR 32~779)
118t>
Assembly Committee on Taxation
Thursday, May 20, 1993
Pagei 3
the committee would hot discuss the casino entertainment ta:x

today and would wa! t for the report from Mr. Elges. some
discussion followed, but Chairman Price reiterated a ~eport in
full would be given upon the receipt of 1nformat1on from Mr,
Ellges.
Chairman Price asked for committee action on A~ 21.
ASS!fil1§LX JOINT RESOLUTION 21 ~
Proposes to amend Nr;:ivada constitution to
require two-thirds majority of each house of
legislature to increase certain existing
taxes or impose dertain new taxes.
{BDR C-156)
ASSElMBLYMAN MARVEL MOVEO 00 PASS AJR 21.
ASSEIMBLYMnN ERNAUT SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIBD.
• * * * * * * * *
Chairman Price asked for committee action on AB 3Sl,
ASSEMBt.Y BILL ;13;1., . . Requires annual prepayment of tax on
insurance premiums. tao~ 57-1714)
ASSEMBLYMAN ERNAUT MOVED TO INDWFINITELY POSTPONE AB 331.
ASSlllMBLYMAN Nlll!GBBORS SECONOEO tam MOTION.
Chairman Price explained AB 331 was part of the Administration's
budget, The committee discussed impact and duration of AB 331.
Mr, Spitler was concerned with AB 331 because the proponents of
the bill could not el('.plain what would happen in the next
biennium. A.B 331 created another: "fiscal l:'esponsib;t.11 ty that
was a vacuum."
Mr. Neighbors addac;i AB 331 would be passed. along to the
consumer.
Mr. Bennett recalled the hearing on AB 331 and commented ne did
not think e case was made at the hea~ing wheLe there was any
precedence for AB 331. He agreed with Mr. Spitler about the
problem remaining in the next budget span. rt was jt.tst bad
policy. Mr. Bennett would not support AS 331.
use
EXHIBIT B
NEVADA
BALLOT QUESTIONS
1994
A compilation or ballot questlons wbkh' will appear

on the November 8, 1994, Nevada
general election ballot
Issued by
CHERYL A. LAU
Secretary of State
LEGISLATlVE ENACTMENTS
\
The joint resolutions on the following pages are me.a.sures passed by the Nevada Legislature which
placed Questions 1t 2,3;5 and 6 on the 1994 general election ballot. Material within the text in italics would
if approved by the voters, be new language added to the constitution. Material in brackets would. if approved
by ~e voters, be deleted. The term ·66th session• refers to the 1991 Nevada Legislature, where the questions
originated. Each of the ballot questions were approved by the 1991 and 1993 Legislature. If the measures are
approved by the people, the amendments be.come part of the Nevada Constitution. The condensation,
explanation} arguments and fiscal note of the measure have~ prepared by the Legislative members or
legislative staff.
Questions 4 and 7 .are measures passed by the 1993 Nevada Legislature to amend the Sales and Use Tax
Act of 1955. If approved by the voters it will amend the Sales and Use Tax Act.
INITIATIVE MEASURES
The Initiative measures, questions 8, 9t 10 and 11, are to amend the Nevada Constitution. If approved
by the voters at the 1994 General Election, the Secretary of State shall resubmit the proposals to the voters
at the 1996 General Election. If approved in 1996, the amendments would become part of the Nevada
Constitution. The condensation, explanation, arguments and fiscal note of the measure have been prepared by
the Secretary of State, upon Consultation with the Attorney General.
NOTES TO VOTERS
NOTE NO. 1·
Ballot Questions 4 and 7 relate to Nevada 1s sales tax. It is important that you understand this tax and
the process by which Jt may be changed, As noted below, only a portion of this tax may be changed by you,
the voter.
Nevada's sales tax consists of three separate taxes levied at different rates on the sale and use of
personal property in the state. The current total rate is 6.50 percent.
The tax includes:
Tax Rate
I. The Sales and Use Tax . . . • . • . . . . . • . . . . . . • • . . • . . . . . . . . • , . . • . 2 Percent

2. The Local School Support Tax ...............••..•.•• , ....••.. 2.25 Percent
3. The City...County Relief Tax • . • . . . . . . . , .. , ......••.•.• , .• , , .. , Ui.Percent
Total .. ., .............. "' ... 1 " ... , .... , ............ k ... t 6.50 Percent
• II, •• , .........
The Sales and Use Tax may be amended or repealed only with the approval of the voters. The l.oca1
School Support Tax and the City-County Relief Tax may be amended or repealed by the legislature without
the .approval of the voters. For the questions on this ballot, however. the legislature has provided that the
Local School Support Tax and the City-County Relief Tax will not be amended unless you approve the
corresponding amendment to the Sales and Use Tax.
Depending on its population, each county is also authorized to hnpo~ an additional tax at a rate of up
to 1 percent, subject to the approval of the voters or governing body in that county. These Additional taxes
have. in some counties increased the rate of the sales tax above the rate imposed statewide.
NOTE NO. z.
Each ballot question includes a FISCAL NOTE that explains only the adverse effect on state and local
governments {increased expenses or decreased revenues).
QUESTION NO. 11
An Initiative Relating to Tax .Restraint
CONDENSATION (ballot question)

Shall the Nevada Constitution be amended to establish a requirement that at least a two,.thirds vote
of both houses of the legislature be necessary to pass a measure which generates or increases a tax, fee,
assessment1 rate or any other fonn of public revenue?
Yes ..................... #@
No........................ D
EXPLANATION
A two..-thirds majority vote of both houses of the legislature would be required for the passage of
any bill or joint resolution which would increase public revenue in any form. The legislature could, by a
simple inajorlty vote, refer any such proposal to a vote of the people at the next general election.
ARGUMENTS FOR PASSAGE

Proponents argue that one way to control the raising of taxes is to require more votes in the
legislature before a measure increasing taxes could be passed; therefore, a smaller number of legislators
could prevent the raising of taxes. This could limit increases in taxes, fees, assessments and assessment
.rates. A broad consensus of support from the entire state would be needed to pass these increases. It may
be more difficult for special interest groups to get increases they favor. It may require state government to
prioritize its spending and economize rather than turning to new sources of revenue. The legislature, b-y
simple majority vote, could ask for the people to vote on any increase.
ARGUMENTS AGAINST PASSAGE

''
OpJX)nettts argue that a special interest group would only need a small minority of legislators to
defe.at any proposed revenue measure. Also a minority of legislators could band together to defeat a tax
increase in return for a favorable vote on other legislation. Legislators act responsibly regarding increases
in taxes since they are accountable to the public to get te"¢lecte1.t If this amendment is a.pprovedt the state
could impose unfunded mandates upon local governments. As a tourism based economy with a tremendous
population growth, Nevada must remain flexible to change the ta,; base, if needed. Nevada shouJd continue
to operate by majority rule as the Nevada Constitution now provides.
FISCAL NOTE
F~I lmpact..No. The proposal to amend the Nevada Constitution to require two--thlrds vote to
pass a bill or joint resolution which creates, generates or increases any public revenue in any form. The
proposal would have no adverse fiscal impact to the State.
~on l1, ra,e l

FULL TEXT OF THE MEASURE
Initiative relating to Tax Restraint
. The people ot the State of Nevada do enact as foUows:

That section 18 or article 4 of the constitution of the State of Nevada be amended to read as follows:
[Sec:] Sec. 18. 1. Every bill, except a bill placed on a consent calendar adopted as provided in
(this section, shall] subsection 4t must be read by sections on three several days. in each Houset unless in
case of emergency, two thirds of the House where such blH (may be] is pending shall deem it expedient to
dispense with this rule. [:but the] The reading of a bill by sections, on its final passage, shall in no case be
dispensed witht and the vote on its final passage, shall in no case be dispensed with, and the vote on final
passage of every bill or joint resolution shall be taken by yeas and nays to be entered on the journals of
each House. [: and} Except as orherwise provided in suhsecrion 2, a majority of all the members elected in
each house [.shall be) is necessary to pass every bill or joint resolution, and all bills or joint resolutions to
passed, shall be signed by the presiding officers of the respective Houses and by the S~retary of State and
clerk of the Assembly.
2. Except as othenvise provided in subsecn·on 3., an affinnative vote of not fewer than twtrthirds of
the members elected to each house is necessary to pass a bill or joint resolution which creates, genera1es1
er increases any public revenue in any fonn, including but nor limited to taxes, fees, assessments and raiesJ
()r changes in the computation bases for taxes, fees, assessments and ra1es.
3, A majority of all of the members elected to each house may refer a,ry measure which creates,
generates, (>r increases any revenue in any fonn 10 the people of the S1a1e (ll the next general election, and
shall become effective and enforced only if ft has been approved by a majority of the votes cast on the
) measure at such election.
4. Each House may provide by rule for the creation of a consent calendar and establish the
procedure for the passage of uncontested bills.
Qut$tlon 11, Pag«, 2

.
• State of Nevada
Ballot uestions
1996 .
•
A compilation of ballot questions which will appear
on the November S, 1996, General Election Ballot
Issued by
Dean Heller
Secretary of State
•
NOTES l'Q YOTERS
..•
Note ND, 1
Ballot Questions 13, 14; and 15 relate to Nevada 1s sales tax. It is important that you understand
this tax and the process by which it may be changed. As noted below, only a portion of this tax
may be changed by you, the voter, pursuant to the attached ballot questions.
Nevada's statewide sales tax consists of three separate parts levied at different rates on the sale
and use of tangible personal property in the st.ate. The current statewide combined rate is
6.50 percent. 1n addition t.o these three parts, each county also may impose additional taxes up to
a combined rate of 1 percent, subject to the approval of the voters or governing body in that
county. These addit:ional truces have, in seven counties> increased the rate of the sales tax above
the 6.5 percent rate imposed statewide.
The tax includes:
TAX RATE
1. The st.ate Sales and Use Tax • • . • . . . . • • • . . . 2.00 Percent

2. The Local School Support Tax (LSST) • . • • • • • • 2.25' Percent
3. The City-County Relief Tax (CCRT) . . . . • . • . • 2.25 Percent
4. Optional local taxes" not more than • . • • . • . . • • 1.00 Percent
The state Sales and Use Tax may be amended or repealed only with the approval of the vote-rs.
The Local School Support Tax (LSSI) and the City-County Relief Tax (CCRT) may be amended
or repealed by the Legislature without the approval of the voters. For Questions 13 and 14 on
this ballot, however, the Legislature has provided that the LSST and the CCRT will not be,
amended unless you approve the ballot question. Approval of Question 13 or Question 14 will
also add an exemption to the optional local taxes. Question 15 addresses the state Sales and Use
Tax only; an exempt.ton from the LSST, CCRT, and optional raxes was previously approved in
Senate Bill :311 of the 1995 tegislatlve Session.
Note No. 2
Each ballot question includes a FJSCal Note that explains only the adverse effect on state and local
governments (increased expenses or decreased revenues). Ballot Question$ 6 and 12 pertain to
the state issuing bonds (borrowing money) that are repaid by state~imposed property tax
revenues. It is estimated that current property tax revenues are sufficient to repay the bonds
proposed in Questions 6 and 12.
Approved b)' the J..ogiml.lvc Comm.lolon
March '}.7, 19915
. '
QUESTION NO. 11
An Initiati,~ Relating to Tax Restraint
CONDENSATION {ballot question)

Shall the Nevada Constitution be amended to establish a requirement that at least a two,.
thirds vote of both houses of the leiislature be necessary to pass a measure which generates or
increases a tax, fee, assessment, rate or any other form of public revenue?
Yes 3. P.G 3 B..).__ . IZJ

No . /J.£. f~.f .. 0
EXPLANATION
A two~thirds majority vote of both houses of the legislature would be required for the
passage of any bill or joint resolution which would increase public revenue in any form. The
legislature could; by a simple majority vote, refer any such proposal to a vote of the people at the
next genera! election.

Proponents argue that one way to control the raising of truces is to require more votes in
the legislature before a measure increasing taxes could be passed; therefore, a smaller number of
legislators could prevent the raising of truces. This rould limit increases in taxes, fees, assessments
and assessment .rates. A broad consensus of support from the entire state would be needed to pass
these increases. It may be more difficult for special interest groups to get increases they favor.
It may require state government to prioritize its spending and economize rather than turning to
new sources of revenue. The legislature, by simple majority vote, could ask for the people to vote
on any increase.

Opponents argue that a special interest group would only need a small minority of
legislators to defeat any proposed revenue measure. Also a minority of legislators could band
together to defeat a tax increase in return for a favorable vote on other legislation. Legislators act
responsibly regarding increases in taxes since they are accountable to the public to get te~elet:lted.
If this amendment is apptoved 1 the state could impose unfunded mandates upon local
governments. As a tourism based economy with a tremendous population growth, Nevada must
remain flexible l:o change the tax base, if needed. Nevada should continue to operate by majority
rule as the Nevada Constitution now provides.
Question 11, Page 1

F1SCALNOTE
,I
F.iscal Impact-No. The proposal to amend the Nevada Constitution to require two..fuirds
vote to pass a bill or joint resolution which creates, generates or increases any public revenue in
,any form. The proposal would have no adverse fiscal impact to the State.
FULL TEXT OF THE l\1EASURE

Initiative relating to Tax Restraint
The people ot the State of Nevada do enact as follows:

That section 18 or article 4 of the constitution of the State of Nevada be amended to read as
follows:
[Sec:] See. 18. 1. Every bill, except a bill placed ort a consent calendar adopted as
provided in [this section> shall] subsectlon 4, must be read by sections on three several days, in
each House, unless in case of emergency, two thirds of the House where such bill [may be] is
pending shall deem it expedient to dispense with this rule. [:but the] The reading of a bill by
sections, on its final passage, shall in no case be dispensed with, and the vote on its final passage,
shall in no case be dispensed with, and the vote on final passage of every bill or joint resolution
shall be taken by yeas and nays to be entered on the journals of each House. [: and] Except as
otherwise provided in subsection 2, a majority of all the members elected in each house [.shall
be] is necessary to pass every bill or joint resolution. and all bills or joint resolutions to passed,
shall be signed by the presiding officers of the respective Houses and by the Secretary of State and
clerk of the Assembly.
2. E.xcept as othe,w/se provided in subsection 3, an affinnatlve vote of not/ewer than two-
thirds of the members elected to each house Is necessary to pass a bill or joint resolution which
creates, generaJes; or increases any public revenue in any fonn, including but not limited to. taxes,
fees, assessmerus and raJes, or changes in the computation bases/or taxes,fees, assessments and
rates.
3. A majority of all of the members elected to each house may refer any measure which
creates, generates, or increases any reventU! in any form to the people of the State at the next
general election, and shall become effective ana enforced only if it has been approved by a
majority of the votes cast on the measure at such election.
4. Each House may provide by rule for the creation of a consent calendar and establish the
procedure for the passage of uncontested bills.
Question 11, Page 2

EXHIBIT C
STATE OF NEVADA LEGISLATIVE COMMISSION (775) 684-6800
JASON FRIBRSON, A~1PmblJ~11a11, Clrm11111m
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL BUREAU Rick Combs, D11ec101, Sci1~/m)•
LEGISLATIVE BUILDING
INTERIM FINANCE COMMITTBB (775) 684-682.t
401 S. CARSON STREET MAGGIE CARLTON, Asse111bl1•11w11a11, Clrcm
CARSON CITY, NEVADA 89701-4747 Cindy )one~ Fr.real A11rr/ysl
Pax No,: (775) 684-6600 Mark ICrmpolJo, Ftscnl AnrrNst
RICK COMBS, D1reclo1 BRENDA J BRDOES, Legrr/attve Co1111sel (775) 684-6830

(775) 684-6800 ROCKY COOPER, Li!g1tlat1ve A11d1tor (71S) 684-6815
MICHAEL J STEWART, Re,mrd1 D11ccto1 (775) 684-682.S
May 8, 2019
Legislative Leadership
Legislative Building
401 S. Carson Street
Carson City, NV 89701
Dear Legislative Leadership:
You have asked this office several legal questions relating to the two-thirds majoxity
requirement in Article 4, Section 18(2) of the Nevada Constitution, which provides in relevant
part that:
[A]n affirmative vote of not fewer than two-thirds of the members elected to each
House is necessary to pass a bill or joint resolution which creates, generates, or
increases any public revenue in any form, including but not limited to taxes 1 fees,
assessments and rates, or changes in the computation bases for taxes, fees,
assessments and rates.
Nev. Const. art. 4, § 18(2). 1
First, you have asked whether the two-thirds majority requirement applies to a bill
which extends until a later date-or revises or eliminates-a future decrease in or future
expiration of existing state taxes when that future decrease or expiration is not legally
operative and binding yet. Second, you have asked whether the two-thirds majority
requirement applies to a bill which reduces or eliminates available tax exemptions or tax
credits applicable to existing state tax.es.
1 Alticle 4, Section 18(2) uses the inclusive phrase "taxes, fees, assessments and rates.'>
However, for ease of discussion in this letter, we will use the term "state taxes" to serve in
the place of the inclusive phrase "taxes, fees, assessments and rates."
(NSPO Rev l•l9) l0l 1578E ~

Legislative Leadership·
May 8, 2019
Page2
In response to youi- questions, we first provide pertinent background information

regarding Nevada's constitutional requirements for the final passage of bills by the
Legislature. Following that, we provide a detailed and comprehensive legal discussion of the
relevant authorities that support our legal opinions regarding the application of Nevada's two-
thirds majority requirement to your specific legal questions. Finally, we note that the legal
opinions expressed in this letter are limited solely to the application of Nevada~ s two-thirds
majority requirement to the specific types of bills directly discussed in this letter. We do not
express any other legal opinions in this letter concerning the application of Nevada's two-
thirds majority requirement to any other types of bills that are not directly discussed in this
Iettel'.
~ACKGROUND
1, Purpose and intent of Nevada's original constitutional majority
requirement for the final passage of bills.
When the Nevada Constitution was framed in 1864, the Framers debated whether the
Legislature should be authorized to pass bills by a simple majority of a quorum under the
traditional parliamentary rule or whether the Legislature should be required to meet a greater
threshold for the final passage of bills. See Andrew J. Marsh, Official Report of the Debates
and .Proceedings of the Nevada State Constitutional Convention of 1864, at 143~45 (1866).
Under the traditional parliamentary rule, if a quornm of members is pxesen.t in a

legislative house, a simple majority of the quomm is sufficient for the final passage of bills by
the house, unless a constitutional ptovision establishes a different requirement. See Mason's
Manual of Legislative Procedure § 510 (2010). This traditional parliamentary rule is followed
by each House of Congress, which may pass bills by a simple majority of a quonun. United
States v. Ballin, 144 U.S. 1, 6 (1892) C'[A]t the time this hill passed the house there was
pxesent a majority, a quorum, and the house was authonzed to transact any and all business.
It was in a condition to act on the bill if it desll'ed."); 1 Thomas M. Cooley, Constitutional
Limitations 291 (8th ed. 1927).
The Framers of the Nevada Constitution rejected the traditional parliamentary rule by
providing in Article 4, Section 18 that "a majority of all the members elected to each House
shall be necessary to pass every bill or joint resolution." Nev. Const. att. 4, § 18 (1864)
(emphasis added). The purpose and intent of the Framers in adopting this constitutional
majority requirement was to ensure that the Senate and Assembly could not pass bills by a
simple majority of a quornm. See Andrew l Marsh, Official Re;g01t of the Debates and
;froceed:ings of the Nevada State Constitutional Convention of 1864, at 143~45 (1866); see
also Andrew J. Marsh & Samuel L. Clemens, Reports of the 1863 Constitutional Convention
of the Territory of Nevada, at 208 (1972).
May8) 2019
Page3
The constitutional majority requirement for the final passage of bills is now codified in
Article 4, Section 18(1)? and it provides that "a majority of all the members elected to each
House is necessary to pass every bill," unless the bill is subject to the two-thirds majority
requirement in Article 4, Section 18(2). Under the constitutional majority requirement in
Article 4, Section 18(1), the Senate and Assembly may pass a bill only if a majority of the
entire membership authorized by law to be elected to each House votes in favor of the bill.
See Mario1meaux v. Hines, 902 So. 2d 373, 377-79 (La. 2005) (holding that in constitutional
provisions requiring a majority or super-majority of members elected to each house to pass a
legislative measure or constitute a quorum, the terms "members elected') and "elected
members" mean the entire membership authorized by law to be elected to each house); State
ex rel. Garland v. Guillory, 166 So. 94, 101-02 (La. 1935); In re Majority of Legislature, 8
Haw. 595, 595-98 (1892).
Thus, under the current membership authorized by law to be elected to the Senate and
Assembly, if a bill requires a constitutional majority for final passage under Article 4,
Section 18(1)1 the Senate may pass the bill only with an affirmative vote of at least 11 of its
21 members, and the Assembly may pass the bill only with an affirmative vote of at least 22
of its 42 members. See Nev. Const. art. 4, § 5, art. 15, § 6 & art. 17, § 6 (directing the
Legislature to establish by law the uumber of members of the Senate and Assembly); NRS
Chapter 218B (establishing by law 21 members of the Senate and 42 members of the
Assembly).
2. Purpose and intent of Nevada's two-thirds majority requirement for the

final passage of bills which create, generate or increase any public revenue in any
form.
At the general elections in 1994 and 1996, Nevada~s voters approved constitutional
amendments to Article 4, Section 18 that were proposed by a ballot initiative pursuant to
Article 19, Section 2 of the Nevada Constitution. The amendments provide that:
Except as otherwise provided in subsection 3, an affirmative vote of not fewer

than two-thirds of the members elected to each House is necessary to pass a bill or
joint l'esolution which creates, generates, or increases any public revenue in any
form, including but not limited to taxes, fees) assessments and rates, or changes in
the computation bases for taxes, fees, assessments and rates.
Nev. Const. art 4, § 18(2) (emphasis added). The amendments also include an exception in
subsection 3, which provides that 1' [a] majority of all of the menibers elected to each House
may refer any measure which creates, generates, or increases any revenue in any form to the
people of the State at the next general election." Nev. Const. art. 4, § 18(3) (emphasis added),
Under the two-thirds majority requirement, if a bill "creates, genetates, or increases any
public revenue in any form," the Senate may pass the bill only with an affirmative vote of at
May 8, 2019
Page4
least 14 of its 21 membe:t:s, and the Assembly may pass the bill only with an affirmative vote
of at least 28 of its 42 members. However, if the two-thirds majority requirement does not
apply to the bill, the Senate and Assembly may pass the bill by a constitutional majority in
each House.
When the ballot initiative adding the two-thirds majority requirement to the Nevada
Constitution was presented to the voters m 1994 and 1996, one of the primary sponsors of the
initiative was former Assemblyman Jim Gibbons. See Guinn v. Legislatuxe (Guinn II), 119
Nev. 460, 471-72 (2003) (discussing the two-thirds majority requirement and describing
Assemblyman Gibbons as ' 1the initiative's prime sponsor")? During the 1993 Legislative
Session, Assemblyman Gibbons sponsored Assembly Joint Resolution. No. 21 (A.J.R. 21),
which proposed adding a two-thirds majority requirement to Article 4, Section 18(2), but
Assemblyman Gibbons was not successful in obtaining its passage, See L_egislatiye History
of A.J.R. 21, 67th Leg. (Nev. LCB Research Library 1993). 3 Nevertheless, because
Assemblyman Gibbons' legislative testimony on A.J.R. 21 in 1993 provides some
contemporaneous extrinsic evidence of the purpose and intent of the two-thirds majority
requirement, the Nevada Supreme Court has reviewed and considered that testimony when
discussing the two-thirds majority requirement that was ultimately approved by the voters in
1994 and 1996. Guinn II, 119 Nev. at 472.
In his legislative testimony on A.J.R. 21 in 1993, Assemblyman Gibbons stated that the
two-thlrds majority requirement was modeled on similar constitutional provisions in other
states, includmg Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Louisiana,
Mississippi, Ok1ahoma and South Dakota. Legj,slative History of A.J.R. 21, supr§; (Hearing
on A.J.R. 21 Before Assembly Comm. on Taxation, 67th Leg., at 11~13 (Nev. May 4, 1993)).
Assemblyman Gibbons testified that the two-thirds majority requh-ement would "require a
two~tlrlrds majority vote in each house of the legislature to increase certain ex1stmg taxes or to
impose ce1tain new taxes." Id. However, Assemblyman Gibbons also stated that the two-
thirds majority requirement "would not impair any existing revenues." Id. Instead,
Assemblyman Gibbons indicated that the two~thirds majority requirement "would bring
greater stability to Nevada's tax systems, while still allowing the flexibility to meet real fiscal
2
In Guinn v. Legislature, the Nevada Supreme Court issued two reported opinions-Guinn I
and Guinn II-that discussed the two-thirds majority requirement, Guinn v. Legislature
(Guinn Pt 119 Nev. 277 (2003), opinion clarified on denial of reh'g, Guinn v. Legislature
(Guinn ID, 119 Nev. 460 (2003). In 2006, the court overruled certain portions of its
Guinn I opinion. Nevadans for Nev. v. Beers, 122 Nev. 930, 944 (2006). However, even
though the court overruled certain po1tions of its Guinn I opinion, the court has not
overruled any portion of its Qyinn II opinion, which remains good law.
3 Available at:
https://www. leg.state.n v. us/Di v1s1on/Researgh/Library/LegHistory/LHs/ 1993/AJR21, 1993.
J2Qf,
May 8, 2019
Page5
needs" because "Mr. Gibbons thought it would not be difficult to obtain a two-thirds majority
if the need for new revenues was clear and convincing/' Id. (emphasis added). In particular)
Assemblyman Gibbons testified as follows:
James A. Gibbons, Assembly District 25, spoke as the prime sponsor of A.J.R. 21
which proposed to amend the Nevada Constitution to require a. two~thirds
majority vote in each house of the legislature to increa.se certain existing taxes or
to impose certain new taxes.
***
Mr. Gibbons stressed A.J.R. 21 amended the Nevada Constitution to require bills
providing fot a genel'al tax increase be passed by a two-thirds majority of both
houses of the legislature. The resolution would apply to property taxes, sales and
use taxes, business taxes based on income, receiptst assets, capital stock or
number of employees, taxes on net proceeds of mines and tax.es on liquor and
cigarettes.
Mr. Gibbons explained A.J.R. 21 was modeled on constitutional provisions which

were in effect in a number of other states. Some of the provisions were adopted
recently in response to a growing concern among voters about increasing tax
burdens and some of the other provisions dated back to earlier times.
***
Mr. Gibbons believed a provision requiring an extraordinary majority was a
device used to hedge or protect certain laws which he believed should not be
lightly changed. A.J.R. 21 would ensure greater stability and preserve certain
statutes from the constant tinkering of transient maJorities.
Mr. Gibbons addressed some of the anticipated objections. Some will claim
A.J,R. 21 would deprive the state of revenues necessary to provide essential state
services. Mr. Gibbons conveyed that was not the case. A.J.R. 21 would not
impair any existing revenues. It was not a tax rollback and did not impose rigid
caps on taxes or spending. Mr. Gibbons thought it would not be dif.flcult to obtain
a two4hirds majori'ty if the need for new revenues was clear and convincing,
A.J.R. 21 would not hamstring state government or prevent state government
from responding to legitimate fiscal emergencies.
***
Mr. Gibbons concluded by saying the measure did not propose government do
less, but actually A.J.R. 21 could permit government to do more. A.J.R. 21 was a
Legislative Leadershlp.
May 8,2019
Page6
simple moderate measure that would bring greater stability to Nevada's tax
systems, while still allowing the flexibility to meet real fiscal needs. Mr. Gibbons
urged the committee's approval of A.J.R. 21.
Legislative History of A.J.R. 2C supra (Hearing on A.J.R. 21 Before Assembly Comm. on

Taxation, 67th Leg., at 11-13 (Nev. May 4, 1993) (emphasis added)).
In addition to Assemblyman Gibbons' legislative testimony on A.J.R. 21 in 1993, the

ballot materials presented to the voters· in 1994 and 1996 also provide some contemporaneous
extrinsic evidence of the purpose and intent of the two-thirds majority requirement. Guinn,
119 Nev. at 471-72. The ballot materials informed the voters that the two-thirds majority
requhement would make it more difficult for the Legislature to enact bills "raising" or
"increasing'' taxes and that H[1]t may require state government to prioritize its spending and
economize rather than turning to new sources of revenue.', Nev. Ballot Questions 1994,
Question No. 11, at 1 (Nev. Sec'y of State 1994) (emphasis added). In particular, the ballot
materials stated as follows:
Proponents argue that one way to control the raising of taxes is to require moxe
votes in the legislature before a measure increasing taxes could be passed;
therefore, a smaller number of legislators could prevent the raising of taxes. This
could limit increases in taxes, fees 1 assessments and assessment rates. A broad
consensus of support from the entire state would be needed to pass these
increases. It may be more difficult for special interest groups to get increases they
favOl'. It may require state government to prioritize its spending and economize
rather than tumin.g to new sources of revenue. The legislature, by simple
majmity vote, could ask for the people to vote on any increase.
Opponents argue that a special interest group would only need a small minority
of legislators to defeat any proposed revenue measure. Also a minority of
legislators could band together to defeat a tax increase in return for a favorable
vote on other legislation. Legislators act responsibly regarding increases in taxes
since they are accountable to the public to get re-elected. If this amendment is
approved, the state could impose unfunded mandates upon local governments. As
a tourism based economy with a tremendous population growth, Nevada must
remain flexible to change the tax base, if needed. Nevada should continue to
operate by majority mle as the Nevada Constitution now provides.
Nev. Ballot Questions 1994, Question No. 11, at 1 (Nev. Seo 1y of State 1994) (emphasis
added).
May 8, 2019
Page?
Finally, based on Asse1nblyman Gibbons' legislative testimony on A.J.R. 21 in 1993

and the ballot materials presented to the voters in 1994 and 1996, the Nevada Supreme Court
has described the purpose and intent of the two-thirds majority requirement as follows:
The supermajority requirement was intended to make it more difficult for the
Legislature to pass new taxes, hopefully encouraging efficiency and effectiveness
in government. Its proponents argued that the tax restdction might also
encourage state government to prioritize its spending and economize rather than
explore new sources of rnvenue.
Guinn Il, 119 Nev. at 471 (emphasis added).
With this background information 111 mind, we turn next to discussing your specific
legal questions.
DISCUSSION
You have asked several legal questions relating to the two-thirds majority requirement
in Article 41 Section 18(2). First, you have asked whether the two-thirds majority requirement
applies to a bill which extends until a later date-or revises or eliminates-a future decrease
in or future expiration of existing state taxes when that future decrease or expiration is not
legally operative and binding yet. Second, you have asked whether the two-thirds majority
requirement applies to a bill which reduces or eliminates available tax: ex.emptions or tax
credits applicable to existing state taxes.
To date, there are no reported cases from Nevada's appellate courts addressing these
legal questions. In the absence of any controlling Nevada case law, we must address these
legal questions by: (1) applying several well-established rules of construction followed by
Nevada 1 s appellate courts; (2) examining contemporaneous extrinsic evidence of the purpose
and intent of the two-thirds majority requirement when it was considered by the Legislature in
1993 and presented to the voters in 1994 and 1996; and (3) consideling case law inte1preting
similar constitutional provisions from other jurisdictions for guidance in this area of the law.
We begin by discussing the rules of construction for constitutional provisions approved

by the voters through a ballot initiative. Following that dis~ussion, we answer each of your
specific legal questions,
1. Rules of construction for constitutional provisions approved by the voters

through a ballot initiative.
The Nevada Supreme Court has long held that the rules of statutory construction also
govern the interpretation of constitutional provisions, inclucling provisions approved by the
May 8, 2019
Page8
voters through a ballot initiative. See Lorton v. Jones. 130 Nev. 51; 56-57 (2014) (applying
the rules of statutory construction to the constitutional term-limit provisions approved by the
voters through a ballot initiative). As stated by the court:
In constJ:uing constitutions and statutes, the first and last duty of courts is to
ascertain the intention of the convention and legislature; and in doing this they
must be governed by well-settled rules, applicable alike to the constmcti.on of
constitutions and statutes.
State ex rel. Wlight v. Dovey:, 19 Nev. 396> 399 (1887). Thus, when applying the rules of
construction to constitutional provisions approved by the voters through a ballot initiative, the
primary task of the court is to ascertain the intent of the drafters and the voters and to adopt an
interpretation that best captures their objective. Nev. Mining Ass'n v. Erdoes, 117 Nev, 531,
538 (2001).
To ascertain the intent of the drafters and the voters, the court will first examine the
language of the constitutional provision to determine whether it has a plain and ordinary
meaning. Miller v. Bu!:k, 124 Nev. 579,590 (2008). If the constitutional language is clear on
its face and is not susceptible to any ambiguity, uncertainty or doubt, the court will generally
give the constitutional language its plain and ordinary meaning, unless doing so would violate
the spirit of the provision or would lead to an absurd or unreasonable result. Miller, 124 Nev.
at 590-91; ;Nev. Mining Ass~n.. 117 Nev. at 542 & n.29.
However, if the constitutional language is capable of "two or more reasonable but

inconsistent interpretations," making it susceptible to ambiguity, uncertainty or doubt> the
court will interpret the constitutional provision according to what history, reason and public
policy would indicate the drafters and the voters intended. Miller, 124 Nev. at 590 (quoting
Gallagher v. City of Las Vegas, 114 Nev. 595, 599 (1998)). Under such clfcumstances, the
col.lrt will look "beyond the language to adopt a construction that best reflects the intent
behind the provision." Spprks Nugget, Inc. v. State, Dep't of Tax'n, 124 Nev. 159, 163
(2008). Thus, if there is any ambiguity, uncettainty or doubt as to the meaning of a
constitutional provision, ''[t]he intention of those who framed the instrument must govern, and
that intention may be gathered from the subject-matter, the effects and consequences, or from
the reason and spitit of the law." State ex rel. Cardwell v. Glenn, 18 Nev. 34, 42 (1883).
Furthermore, even when there is some ambiguity, uncertainty or doubt as to the

meaning of a constitutional provision, that ambiguity, unce1tainty or doubt must be resolved
in favor of the Legislature and its general power to enact legislation. When the Nevada
Constitution imposes limitations upon the Legislature's power> those limitations "are to be
strictly construed> and are not to be given effect as against the general power of the
legislature, unless such limitations clearly inhibit the act in question.>' In re Platz, 60 Nev.
296, 308 (1940) (quoting Baldwin v. State, 3 S.W. 109, 111 (Tex. Ct. App. 1886)). As a
result, the language of the Nevada Constitution Hmust be strictly construed in favor of the
May 8, 2019
Page9
power of the legislature to enact the legislation under it." ML. Therefore, even when a
constitutional provision imposes wstrlctions and limitations upon the Legislature's power,
those "[r]estdctions and limitations are not extended to include matters not covered." City of
Los Angeles v. Post War Pub. Works Rev. Bd.) 156 P.2d 746, 754 (Cal. 1945).
For example, under the South Dakota Constitution, the South Dakota Legislature may
pass its general appropriations bill to fund the operating expenses of state government by a
majority of all the members elected to each House, but the fmal passage of any special
appropriations bills to authorize funding for other purposes requires "a two-thirds vote of all
the members of each branch of the Legislature,,, S.D. Const. mt. ill, § 18, art. XII, § 2. In
interpreting this two-thirds majority requirement, the South Dakota Supreme Court has
determined that the requirement must not be extended by construction or inference to include
situations not clearly within its terms. Apa v. Butler, 638 N.W.2d 57, 69-70 (S.D, 2001). As
further explained by the court:
[P]etitioners strongly urged during oral argument that the challenged

appropriations from the [special funds] must be special appropriations because it
took a two-thirds majority vote of each House of the legislature to create the two
special funds in the first instance. Petitioners correctly pointed out that allowing
money from the two funds to be reappropriated in the general appropriations bill
would allow the legislature to undo by a simple majority vote what it took a two-
thirds majority to create. On that basis. petitioners invite this Court to read a two-
thirds vote requirement into the Constitution for the amendment or repeal of any
special continuing appropriations measure. This we cannot do.
Our Constitution must be construed by its plain meaning: "If the words and
language of the provision are unambiguous, 'the language in the constitution must
be applied as it reads.rn Cid v. S.D. Dep't of Social Servs., 598 N.W.2d 887, 890
(S.D. 1999). Here, the constitutional two-thirds voting requirement for
appropriations measures is only imposed on the passage of a special
appropriation, See S.D. Const. art. XIl1 § 2. There is no constitutional requirement
for a two-thirds vote on the repeal or amendment of an existing special
appropriation, not to mention a continuing special appropriation. Generally:
[s]pecial provisions in the constitution as to the number of votes required

fol' the passage of acts of a particular nature .. , are not extended by
construction or inference to include situations not clearly within their terms.
Accordingly, a special provision regulating the number of votes necessary
for the passage of bills of a certain character does not apply to the repeal of
laws of this characte1\ or to an act which only amends them.
Apa, 638 N.W.2d at 69~70 (quoting 82 C.J.S. Statutes § 39 (1999) (republished as 82 C.J.S.
Statutes § 52 (Westlaw 2019)).
May 8, 2019
Page 10
Lastly> in matters involving state constitutional law, the Nevada Supreme Court is the
final arbiter or interpreter of the meaning of the Nevada Constitution. Nevadans for Nev. v.
Beers, 122 Nev. 930, 943 n.20 (2006) ("A well-established tenet of our legal system is that
the judiciary is endowed with the duty of constitutional interpretation."); Guinn II, 119 Nev.
at 471 (describing the Nevada Supreme Court and its justices Has the ultimate custodians of
constitutional meaning."), Neve1theless, even though the final power to decide the meaning
of the Nevada Constitution ultimately rests with the judiciary, cc[iJn the performance of
assigned constitutional duties each branch of the Government must .initially interpret the
Constitution, and the interpretation of its powers by any branch is due great respect from the
others." United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 703 (1974),
Accordingly, the Nevada Supreme Court has recognized that a reasonable construction
of a constitutional provision by the Legislature should be given great weight. State ex rel.
Coffin v. Howell, 26 Nev. 93. 104-05 (1901)~ State ex rel. Cardwell v. Glenn, 18 Nev. 34, 43-
46 (1883), This is particularly true when a constitutional provision concerns the passage of
legislation. ill.. Thus, when construing a constitutional provision, Halthough the action of the
legislature is not final, its decision upon this point is to be treated by the courts with the
consideration which is due to a co-ordinate department of the state government, and in case of
a reasonable doubt as to the meaning of the words, the construction given to them by the
legislature ought to prevail." Dayton Gold & Silver Mining Co. v. Seawell, 11 Nev. 394,
399-400 (1876).
The weight given to the Legislature's construction of a constitutional prov1s1on

involving legislative procedure is of particular force when the meaning of the constitutional
provlsion is subject to any uncertainty, ambiguity or doubt. Nev. Mining Ass 1 n, 117 Nev. at
539~40. Under such ci.l'cumstances, the Legislature may rely on an opinion of the Legislative
Counsel which interprets the constitutional provision, and "the Legislature is entitled to
deference in its counseled se,lection of this interpretation." Id. at 540. For example, when the
meaning of the term "midnight Pacific standard time,'1 as formerly used in the constitutional
provision limiting legislative sessions to 120 days, was subject to uncertainty, ambiguity and
doubt followhlg the 2001 Legislative Session, the Nevada Supreme Court explained that the
Legislature's interpretation of the constitutional provision was entitled to deference because
"[i]n choosing this inte1pretation, the Legislature acted on Legislative Counsel's opinion that
this is a reasonable construction of the provision. We agree that it is, and the Legislature is
entitled to deference in its counseled selection of this interpretation." Id.
Consequently, in determining whether the two-thirds majority requirement applies to a

particular bill, the Legislature has the power to interpret Article 4, Section 18(2), in the first
instance, as a reasonable and necessary corollary power to the exercise of its expressly
granted and exclusive constitutional power to enact laws by the passage of bills. See Nev,
Const. art. 4, § 23 (providing that "no law shall be enacted except by bill."); State ex rel.
Torreyson v. Grey, 21 Nev. 378, 380-84 (1893) (discussing the power of the Legislature to
May 8, 2019
Page 11
interpret constitutional provisrons governing legislative procedure). Moreover, because

Article 4, Section 18(2) involves the exercise of the Legislature's lawmaking powet, any
uncertainty, ambiguity or doubt regarding the application of the two-thirds majority
1-equirement must be resolved in favor of the Legislature's lawmaldng power and against
restrictions on that power. See Platz, 60 Nev. at 308 (stating that the language of the Nevada
Constitution "must be strictly construed in favor of the power of the legislature to enact the
legislation under it."). As further explained by the Nevada Supreme Court:
Briefly stated, legislative power is the power of law~malcing representative

bodies to frame and enact laws, and to amend or repeal them. This power is
indeed very broad, and, except where limited by Federal or State Constitutional
provisions, that power is practically absolute. Unless there are specific
constitutional limitations to the contrary, statutes are to be construed in favor of
the legislative power.
Galloway v. Truesdell, 83 Nev. 13, 20 (1967).
Finally, when the Legislature exercises its power to interpret Article 4, Section 18(2) in
the first fastance, the Legislature may resolve any uncertainty, ambiguity or doubt regarding
the application of the two~thirds majority requirement by following an opinion of the
Legislative Counsel which interprets the constitutional provision, and the judiciary will
typically afford the Legislature deference in its counseled selection of that interpwtation.
With these rules of construction as our guide, we must apply them in the same manner as
Nevada's appellate cou1ts to answer each of your specific legal questions.
2, Does the two ..thirds majority requirement apply to a bill which extends
until a later date-or revises 01• eliminates-a future decrease in or future
expiration of existing state taxes when that future decrease or expiration is not
legally operative and binding yet?
Under the rules of construction, we must start by examining the plain language of the
two-thirds majority requirement in Atticle 4, Section 18(2), which provides in relevant pa.it
that:
[A]n affirmative vote of not fewer than two-thirds of the members elected to each
House is necessary to pass a bill or joint resolution which creates, generates, or
increases any public revenue in any form, including but not limited to taxes, fees,
assessments and rates, or changes in the computation bases for taxes, fees,
assessments and rates.
Nev. Const. art. 4, § 18(2) (emphasis added).

May 8, 2019
Page 12
Based on its plain language, the two-thirds majol'ity requirement applies to a bill which
"creates, generates, or increases any public revenue in any form." The two-thirds majority
requirement, however, does not provide any definitions to assist the reader :in apply:ing the
terms "creates, generates, or increases." Therefore, in the absence of any constitutional
definitions, we must give those terms their ordinary and commonly understood meanings.
As explained by the Nevada Supreme Court, ''[w]hen a word is used :in a statute or
constitution, it is supposed it is used in its ordinary sense, unless the contrary is indicated/'
E:a; parte :Ming, 42 Nev. 472, 492 (1919); Seaborn v, Wingf:ielg, 56 Nev, 260, 267 (1935)
(stating that a word or term Happear:ing in the constitution must be taken :in its general or usual
sense,"). To arrive at the ordinary and comm.only understood meaning of the constitutional
language, the court will usually rely upon dictionary definitions because those definitions
reflect the ordinary meanings that are commonly ascribed to words and terms. See Rogers v.
Heller, 117 Nev. I69, 173 & n.8 (2001); Cunningham v. State, 109 Nev, 569, 571 (1993).
Therefore, unless it is clear that the drafters of a constitutional provision mtended for a term to
be given a technical meaning, the court has emphasized that "[t]he Constitution was written to
be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary as
distinguished from technical meaning." StrickJand y. Waymire, 126 Nev. 230, 234 (2010)
(quoting Dist. of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570,576 (2008)).
According]y. in interpreting the two-thirds majority requirement1 we must review the

normal and ordinary meanings comm.only ascribed to the terms "creates, generates. or
increases" in Article 4, Section 18(2). The comm.on dictionary meaning of the term "create"
is to ~'bring into existencett or 11produce." Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary 304 (9th ed.
1991). The common dictionary meaning of the term "generate" is also to "bring into
existence" or "produce." Id. at 510. Finally, the common dictionary meaning of the term
":inc:tease" is to Hmake greater" or "enlarge. u Id. at 611.
Based on the normal and ordinary meanings of the terms "creates, genexates, or
increases" as used in Article 4, Section 18(2); we believe that the two-thirds majority
requirement applies to a bill which directly brings into existence, produces or enlarges public
revenue in the first instance by imposing new or increased state taxes. However, when a bill
does not impose new or increased state taxes but simply maintains the existing "computation
bases" currently in effect for existing state taxes, we do not believe that the two-thirds
majority requirement applies to the bill.
Given the plain language in Article 4, Section 18(2), the two-thirds majority
requirement applies to a bill which makes "changes in the computation bases for taxes, fees,
assessments and rates/' Nev. Const. art. 4, § 18(2) (emphasis added). Based on its normal
and ordinary meaning, a "computation base', is a formula that consists of "a number that is
multiplied by a rate or [from] which a percentage or fraction ls calculated.n Webster's~"\£
Collegiate Dictiona.1:y 133 & 271 (9th ed. 1991) (defining the terms "computation11 and
"base»). In other words, a Hcomputation base" is a fol'mula which consists of a base nuru.ber,
May 8, 2019
Page 13
.such as an amount of money, and a number serving as a multiplier, such as a percentage or

fraction, that is used to calculate the product of those two numbers.
By applying the normal and ordinary meaning of the term "computation base/' we
believe that the two-thirds majority requirement applies to a bill which directly changes the
statutory computation bases-that is, the statutory formulas-used for calculating existing
state taxes, so that the revised statutory formulas directly bring into existence, produce or
enlarge public revenue in the first instance because the existing statutory base numbers or the
existing statutory multipliers are changed by the bill in a manner that !,creates, generates, or
increases any public revenue/' Nev. Const. art. 4, § 18(2). However, when a bill does not
change-but maintains-the existing statutory base numbers and the existing statutory
multipliers currently in effect for the existing statutory formulas, we do not believe that the
bill "creates, generates 1 or increases any public revenue" within the meaning, purpose and
intent of the two-thirds majority requirement because .the existing "computation bases"
currently in effect are not changed by the bill. ~
Accordingly, to answer your first question, we must determine whether a bill which
extends until a later date-or revises or eliminates-a future decrease in or future expiration
of existing state taxes would be considered a bill which changes or one which maintain& the
existing computation bases cutrently in effect for the existing state taxes. In order to make
this determination, we must consider several well-established rules of construction governing
statutes that are not legally operative and binding yet.
It is well established that "[tJhe e:xistence of a law, and the time when it shall take
effect, are two separate and distinct things. The law exists from the date of approval, but its
operation [may be] postponed to a future day." Peo12le ex :i;el. Graham v, Ingli~. 43 N.E. 1103,
1104 (ID. 1896). Thus, because the Legislature has the power to postpone the operation of a
statute until a later time, it may enact a statute that has both an effective date and a later
operative date. 82 C.J.S. Statutes § 549 (West1aw 2019). Under such circumstances, the
effective date is the date upon which the statute becomes an existing law, but the later
operative date is the date upon which the requirements of the statute will actually become
legally binding. 82 C.J.S. Statutes § 549 (Westlaw 2019); Preston v. State Bd. of Hqual., 19
P.3d 1148, 1167 (Cal. 2001). When a statute has both an effective date and a later operative
date, the statute must be understood as speaking from its later operative date when it actually
becomes legally binding and not from its earlier effective date when it becomes an existing
Jaw but does not have any legally binding requirements yet. 82 C.J.S. Statutes § 549
(Westlaw 2019); Longview Co. v. LyDJ1, 108 P.2d 365, 373 (Wash. 1940). Consequently,
until the statute reaches its later operative date, the statute is not legally operative and binding
yet, and the statute does not confer any presently e:xisting and enforceable legal rights or
benefits under its provisions. Id.; Levinson v. City of Kansas City, 43 S.W.3d 312, 316-18
(1Vfo. Ct. App. 2001).
May8,2019
Page 14
Consequently, if an existing statute provides for a future decrease in or future expiration

of existing state taxes, that future decrease or expiration is not legaUy operative and binding
yet, and the statute does not confer any presently existing and enforceable legal rights or
benefits under its provisions to that future decrease or expiration. Because such a future
decrease or expiration is not legally operative and binding yet, we believe that the two~thirds
majority requirement does not apply to a bill which extends until a later date-or revises or
eliminates-the future decrease or expiration because such a bill does not change--but
maintains-the existing computation bases currently in effect for the existing state taxes.
We find support for our interpretation of the plain language in Article 4, Section 18(2)
from the contemporaneous extdnsic evidence of the purpose and intent of the two-thirds
majority requirement when it was considered by the Legislature in 1993 and presented to the
voters :in 1994 and 1996.
When interpreting constitutional provisions approved by the voters through a ballot

initiative, the court may consider contemporaneous extrinsic evidence of the purpose and
intent of the constitutional provisions that was available when the initiative was presented to
the voters for approval. See 42 Am. Jur. 2d Initiative & Referendum§ 49 (Westlaw 2019)
("To the extent possible, when interpreting a ballot initiative, courts attempt to place
themselves in the position of the voters at the time the initiative was placed on the ballot and
try to interpret the initiative using the tools available to citizens at that time."). However,
even though the court may consider contemporaneous extrinsic evidence of intent, the comt
will not consider post-enactment statements, affidavits or testimony from sponsors regarding
their intent. See A-NLV Cab Co. v. State Taxicab Auth., 108 Nev. 92, 95-96 (1992) (holding
that the comt will not consider post-enactment statements, affidavits or testimony from
legislators as a means of establishing their legislative intent, and any such materials are
inadmissible in evidence as a matter of law); Alaskans for a Common Langgage, Inc. v. Kritz,
170 P.3d 183 1 193 (Alaska 2007) (''Because we must construe an initiative by looking to the
materials considered by the voters themselves, we cannot rely on affidavits of the sponsors'
intent."); 42 Am. Jur. 2d Initiative & Referendum§ 49 (Westlaw 2019).
The court may find contemporaneous extrinsic evidence of intent from the legislative
history surrounding the proposal and approval of the ballot measure. See Ramsey v. City of
N.·Las Vegas, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 16,392 P.3d 614, 617-19 (2017). The court also may find
contemporaneous extrinsic evidence of intent from statements made by proponents and
opponents of the ballot measure. See Guinn II, 119 Nev. at 471~72. Finally, the court may
fmd contemporaneous extrinsic evidence of intent from the ballot materials provided to the
voters, such as the question~ explanation and arguments for and against passage mcluded in
the sample ballots sent to the voters. See Nev. Mining Ass'n, 117 Nev. at 539; Pellegrini v~
State, 117 Nev. 860, 876~77 (2001).
As discussed previously, based on the legislative testimony sun-ounding A.J.R. 21 in

1993 and the ballot materials presented to the voters in 1994 and 19961 there is
May 8, 2019
Page 15
contemporaneous extrinsic evidence that the two-thirds majority requirement was intended to
apply to a bill which directly brings into existence, produces or enlarges public revenue in the
first instance by raising "new taxes" or "new revenues,, or by increasing "existing tax.es."
Legislative History of A.J.R. 21, su121·a (Hearing on A.J.R. 21 Before Assembly Corum. on
Taxation, 67th Leg., at 11-13 (Nev. May 4, 1993)); Nev. Ballot Questions 1994. Question
No. 11, at 1 (Nev. Sec'y of State 1994). However, the contemporaneous extrinsic evidence
also indicates that the two-thirds majority requirement was not intended to "impair any
existing revenues." Id.
Furthermore1 there is nothing in the contemporaneous extrinsic evidence to indicate that

the two-tb:irds majority requirement was intended to apply to a bill which does not change-
but maintains-the existing computation bases currently in effect for existing state taxes. We
believe that the absence of such contemporaneous extrinsic evidence is consistent with the
fact that: (l) such a bill does not raise new state taxes and revenues because it maintains the
existing state taxes and revenues currently in effect; and (2) such a bill does not increase the
existing state taxes and revenues currently in effect-but maintains them in their current state
under the law-because the existing computation bases currently in effect are not changed by
the bill.
Finally, we find support for our interpretation of the plain language in Article 4,
Section 18(2) based on the case law interpreting similar constitutional provisions from other
jurisdictions. As discussed previously, the two-thirds majority requirement in the Nevada
Constitution was modeled on constitutional provisions from other states. ;Legislative History
of A.J.R. 21> supra (Hearing on A.J.R. 21 Before Assembly Comm. on Taxation. 67th Leg. 1 at
12-13 (Nev. May 4, 1993)). As confirmed by Assemblyman Gibbons:
Mr. Gibbons explained A.J.R. 21 was modeled on constitutional provisions which

were in effect in a number of other states. Some of the provisions were adopted
recently in response to a growing concern among voters about increasing tax
burdens and some of the other provisions dated back to earlier times.
Id. at 12.
Under the rules of construction, "[w]hen Nevada legislation is patterned after a federal
statute or the law of another state, it is understood that 'the courts of the adopting state usually
follow the construction placed on the statute in the jurisdiction of its inception."' Advanced
Sports Tufo. v. Novotnak, 114 Nev. 336, 340 (1998) (quoting Sec. Inv. Co. v. Donnelley. 89
Nev. 341, 347 n.6 (1973)). Thus, if a provision in the Nevada Constitution is modeled on a
similar constitutional provision Hfrom a sister state, it is presumably adopted with the
construction given it by the highest court of the sister state." State ex rel. Harvey v. Second
Jud. Dist. Ct., 117 Nev, 754, 763 (2001) ("[S]ince Nevada relied upon the California
Constitution as a basis for developing the Nevada Constitution, it is appropriate for us to look
May 8, 2019
Page 16
'
to the California Supreme Courfs interpretation of the [similar] language in the California
Constitution.").
Consequently, in interpreting and applying Nevada's two~thirds majority requirement, it

is appropriate to consider case law from the other states where courts have interpreted the
simtlar supennaj01ity requirements that served as the model for Nevada's two~thlrds majolity
requirement. Furthermore, in considering that case law, we must presume that the drafters
and voters intended for Nevada's two-thirds majority requirement to be interpreted in a
manner that adopts and follows the judicial interpretations placed on the similar supermajority
requirements by the courts from those other states.
In 1992, the voters of Oldahoma approved a state constitutional provision imposing a

three-fourths supermajority requirement on the Oldahoma Legislature that applies to "[a]ll
bills for raising revenue1' or "[aJny revenue bill." Okla. Const. art. V, § 33. In addition 1
Oklahoma has a state constitutional provision, lmown as an HQrigination Clause," which
provides that "[a]ll bills for raising revenue" must origil.1ate in the lower house of the
Oklahoma Legislature. Id. The Oklahoma Supreme Court has adopted the same
interpretation for the term ''bills for raising revenue" with regard to both state constitutional
provisions. Okla. Auto. Dealers Ass'n v. State ex rel. Okla. Tax Comm'n, 401 P.3d 1152,
1158 n.35 (Olda. 2017). In relevant part, Oklahoma's constitutional provisions state:
A. All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives.
The Senate may propose amendments to revenue bills.
***
D. Any revenue bill originating in the House of Representatives may become
law without being submitted to a vote of the people of the state if such bill
receives the approval of three-fourths (3/4) of the membership of the House of
Representatives and three-fourths (3/4) of the membership of the Senate and is
submitted to the Governor for appropriate action.***
Okla. Const. art. V, § 33 (emphasis added).
In Fent v. Fallin} 345 P.3d 1113} 1114-15 (Okla. 2014), the petitioner claimed that
Oldahoma's supermajority requirement applied to a bill which modified Oklahoma's income
tax rates even though the effect of the modifications did not increase revenue. The bill
included provisions "deleting expiration date of specified tax rate levy.>' Id. at 1116 n.6, The
Oldahorna Supreme Court held that the supermajority requirement did not apply to the bill.
Id. at 1115~18. In discussing the purpose and intent of Oklahoma1 s supermaJority
requirement for "bills for raising revenue," the court found that:
May 8, 2019
Page 17
[TJhe ballot title reveals that the measure was aimed only at bills "intended to
raise revenue" and 11revenue raising bills.') The plain, popular, obvious and
natural meaning of "raise,, in this context is "increase." This plain and popular
meaning was expressed in the public theme and message of the pmponents of this
amendment: "No New Taxes Without a Vote of the People."
Reading the ballot title and text of the provision together reveals the 1992
amendment had two primary purposes. First, the amendment has the effect of
limiting the generation of State revenue to existing xevenue measures. Second,
the amendment requires future bills "intended to raise revenue~' to be approved by
either a vote of the people or a three~fomths majOl'ity in both houses of the
Legislature.
Id. at 1117.
Based on the purpose and intent of Oldahoma's supermajority requirement for "bills for
raising revenue," the court determined that "[n]otbing in the ballot title or text of the provision
reveals any intent to bar or restrict the Legislature from amending the existing revenue
measuresi so long as such statutory amendments do not 'raise' or mcrease the tax burden/' Id.
at 1117-18. Given that the bill at issue in Fent included provisions !{deleting ex.piration date
of specified tax rate levy,n we must presume the court concluded that those provisions of the
bill did not result in an increase m the tax burden that triggered the supermajority requirement
even though those provisions of the bill eliminated the future expiration of existing state
taxes.
In Naifeh v. State ex rel. Okla. Tax Comm~n, 400 P.3d 759, 761 (Okla. 2017), the
petitioners claimed that Oldahoma's supermajority requirement applied to a bill which was
intended to "generate approximately $225 million per year in new revenue far the State
through a new $1.50 assessment on each pack of cigarettes." The state atgued that the
supermajority requirement did not apply to the cigarette-assessment bill because it was a
regulatory measurei not a revenue measure. Id. at 766. In particular, the state contended that:
(1) the primary purposes of 1he bill were to reduce the incidence of smoking and compensate
the state fox the harms caused by smoking; (2) any raising of revenue by the bill was merely
incidental to those purposes; and (3) the bill did not levy a tax, but rather assessed a
regulatory fee whose proceeds would be used to offset the costs of State-provided healthcare
for those who smoke, even though most of the ·revenue generated by the bill was not
earmarked for that purpose. Id. at 766-68.
The Oklahoma Supreme Court held that the supermajority l'eqnirement applied to the
cigarette-assessment bill because the text of the bill "conclusively demonsb:ate[d] that the
primary operation and effect of the measure [was] to raise new revenue to support state
government." Id. at 766 (emphasis added). In reaching its holding, the court reiterated the
two-part test that it uses to determine whether a bill is subject to Oklahoma's super.majority
May 8, 2019
Page 18
requirement for "bills for raising revenue." Id. at 765. Under the two~part test, a bill is
subject to the supermajority requirement if; (1) the principal object of the bill is to raise new
revenue for the support of state government, as opposed to a bill under which revenue may
incidentally arise; and (2) the bill levies a new tax in the strict sense of the word. Id. In a
companion case1 the coUl't stated that it invalidated the cigarette-assessment bill because:
[T]he cigarette measure fit squarely within our century-old test for "revenue
bills," in th.at it both had the primary purpose of raising revenue for the suppo1t of
state government and it levied a new tax in the strict sense of the word.
Okla. Auto. Dealers Ass'n, 401 P.3d at 1153 (emphasis added); accord Sierra Club v. State ex
rel. Olda. Tax Comm'n, 405P.3d 691, 694-95 (Olda. 2017).
In 1996, the voters of Oregon approved a state constitutional provision imposing a

three~fifths supermajorlty requirement on the Oregon Legislature, which provides that
"[t]h:ree~fifths of all members elected to each House shall be necessary to pass bills for raising
revenue.'' Or. Const. art. IV, § 25 (emphasis added), In addition, Oregon has a state
constitutional provision, known as an "Origination Clauset" which provides that "bills for
raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives.,, Or. Const. art. N, § 18
(emphasis added). The Oregon Supreme Court has adopted the same interpretation for the
term "bills for raising revenue" with regard to both state constitutional provisions. Bobo v.
Kulongoski, 107 P.3d 18, 24 (Or. 2005),
In determining the scope of Oregon's constitutional provisions for "bills for raising
revenue,)! the Oregon Supreme Court has adopted a two-part test that is similar to the two-part
test followed by the Oklahoma Supreme Court. Bobo, 107 P.3d at 24. In particular, the
Oregon Supreme Comt has stated:
Considering the wording of [each constitutional provision], its history, a11d the
case law sunounding it, we conclude that the question whether a bill is a "bill for
raising revenue'i entails two issues. The first is whether the bill collects or brings
money :into the treasury. If it does not, that is the end of the inquiry. If a bill does
bring money into the treasury, the remaining question is whether the bill
possesses the essential features of a bill levying a tax.
Id. (emphasis added).
In applying its two-part test in Bobo, the court observed that "not every statute that
brought money into the treasury was a 'bill for raising revenue' within the meaning of [the
constitutional provisions)." Bobo, 107 P.3d at 24. Instead, the comt found that the
constitutional provisions applied onJy to the specific types of bills that the framers had in
rnind-"bills to levy taxes and similar exactions." Id. at 23. Based on the normal and
May 8, 2019
Page 19
ordinmy meanings commonly ascribed to the terms "raise11 and f 1revenue" in the constitutional
provisions, the court reached the following conclusions:
We draw two tentative conclusions from those terms. First, a bill will Hraise'j
revenue only if it ''collects" or ''brings in,, money to the treasury. Second, not
every bill that collects or brings in money to the treasury is a "bil[l] for raising
revenue." Rather, the definition of "revenue)) suggests that the framers had a
specific type of bill in mind-bills to levy taxes and similar exactions.
Id. (emphasis added).
After considering the case law from Oklahoma and Oregon, we beheve it is reasonable
to interpret Nevada's two~thirds majority requirement in a manner that adopts and follows the
judicial interpretations placed on the similar supermajority requirements by the courts from
those states. Under those judicial interpretations, we believe that Nevada's two-thirds
majority requirement does not apply to a bill unless it levies new or increased state taxes in
the strict sense of the word or possesses the essential features of a bill that levies new or
increased state taxes or similar exactions, "including but not limited to taxes, fees,
assessments and rates, or changes in the computation bases for taxes, fees, assessments and
rates." Nev. Const. art. 4, § 18(2).
Consequently, we believe that Nevada's two-thirds majority requirement does not apply
to a bill which extends tintil a later date-or revises or eliminates-a future decrease in or
futnre expiration of existing state taxes when that future decrease or expiration is not legally
operative and binding yeti because such a bill does not levy new or increased state taxes as
described in the cases from Oklahoma and Oregon. Instead, because such a bill maintains the
existing computation bases currently in effect for the existing state taxes, it is the opinion of
this office that such a bill does not create; generate or increase any public revenue w1thin the
meaning, purpose and intent of Nevada's two~thirds ml:ljority requirement because the
existing coru.putation bases currently m effect are not changed by the bill.
3. Does the two ..thirds majority requirement apply to a bill which reduces Ol'
eliminates available tax exemptions or tax credits applicable to existing state
taxes?
As discussed previously, Article 4, Section 18(2) pwvides that the two-thirds major.ity
requirement applies to a bill which "creates, generates, 01· increases any public revenue in any
form, including but not limited to taxes, fees, assessments and rates, or changes in the
computation bases for taxes, fees, assessments and rates." Nev. Const. art. 4, § 18(2)
(emphasis added). Based on the plain language in Article 41 Section 18(2), we do not believe
that the two~tbirds majority requirement applies to a bill which reduces or eliminates available
tax exemptions or tax ctedits applicable to existing state taxes because such a reduction or
May 8, 2019
Page20
elimination does not change the existing computation bases or statutory formulas used to ·
calculate the underlying taxes to which the exemptions or credits are applicable.
T.he plain language in Article 4, Section 18(2) expressly states that the two-thirds
majority requil'ement applies to changes in 11 computation bases," but it is silent with regard to
changes in tax exemptions or tax credits. Nev. Const. art. 4, § 18(2). Nevertheless, under
long-standing legal principles, it is well established that tax exemptions or tax credits are not
part of the computation bases or statntory formulas used to calculate the underlying taxes to
which the exemptions or credits are applicable. Instead, tax exemptions or tax credits apply
only after the underlying tax.es have been calculated using the computation bases or statutory
formulas and the taxpayer properly and timely claims the tax exemptions or tax credits as a
statutory exception to liability for the amount of the taxes. S.ee City of Largo v. AHF-Bay
Fund, LLC, 215 So.3d 10, 14-15 (Fla. 2017); State v. A.]Jred, 195 P.2d 163, 167-170 (Ariz.
1948); Rutgers Ch. of Delta Upsilon Frat. v. City of New Brunswick, 28 A.2d 759, 760-61
(N.J. 1942); Chesney v. Byrami 101 P.2d 1106, 1110-12 (Cal. 1940). As explained by the
Missouri Supreme Court:
T.he burden is on the taxpayer to establish that property is entitled to be exempt.

An exemption from taxation can be waived. Until the exempt status is established
the property is subject to taxation even though the facts would have justified the
exempt status if they had been presented for a determination of that issue.
State ex rel. Council Apts .• Inc. v. Leachman. 603 S.W.2d 930, 931 (Mo. 1980) (citations
omitted). As a resulti if the taxpayer fails to properly and timely claim the tax exemptions or
tax credits, the taxpayer is liable for the amount of the taxes. See State Tax Comm'n v. Am.
Home Shield of Nev., Inc., 127 Nev. 382, 386-87 (2011) (holding that a taxpayer that
erroneously made tax payments on "exempt services" was not entitled to claim a refund after
the l~year statute of limitations on refund claims expired).
Accordingly, based 011 the plain language in Article 4, Section. 18(2), we do not believe
that a bill which reduces or eliminates available tax exemptions or tax credits changes the
computation bases used to calculate the underlying state taxes within the meaning, purpose
and intent of the two-thirds majority requirement because the existing computation bases
currently in effect are not changed by the bill. Furthermore, based on the legislative
testimony sun-ounding A.J.R. 21 in 1993 and the ballot materials presented to the vote1's in
1994 and 1996, there is nothmg in the contemporaneous extrinsic evidence to indicate that the
two-thirds majority requirement was intended to apply to a bill which reduces or eliminates
available tax exemptions or tax credits. Finally, based on the case law interpreting similar
constitutional provisions from other jurisdictions, courts have consistently held that similar
supermajority requirements do not apply to bills which reduce or eliminate available tax.
exemptions or tax credits.
May8,2019
Page 21
Unlike the supermajority requitements in other state constitutions, the Louisiana

Constitution expressly provides that its supermajol'ity requirement applies to "a repeal of an
existing tax exemption." La. Const. art. VIL § 2, Specifically, the Louisiana Constitution
states:
The levy of a new tax, an increase in an e;tisting tax 1 o:r a repeal of an existing tax.
exemption shall require the enactment of a law by two-thirds of the elected
members of each house of the legislature.
La. Const. art. VIli § 2.
In determining the scope of Louisiana1 s supermajority requirement, the Louisiana Court

of Appeals explained that the supermajority requirement did not apply to legislat10n wbJ.ch
suspended a tax exemption-but did not repeal the exemption-because "[a] suspension
(which is time-limited) of an exemption is not the same thing as a permanent repeal." La.
Chem. Ass'n v. State ex rel. La, Dep't of Revenue, 217 So.3d 455, 462-63 (La. Ct. App.
2017), writ of review denied, 227 So.3d 826 (La. 2017). Furthermore, the court rejected the
argument that because the supermajority requirement applied to the prior legislation that
enacted the underlying tax levy for which the exemption was granted, the supennajori.ty
requirement by necessary implication also had to be applied to any subsequent legislation that
suspended the tax exemption. Id. In rejecting that argument, the court stated:
The levy of the initial tax, preceding the decision to grant an exemption, is the
manner in which the Legislature raises revenue. Since the tax levy 1·aises the
revenues and since the granting of the ex.emption does not change the underlying
tax levy. we find that suspending an exemption is not a revenue raising measure.
Id. at 463.
As discussed previously, Oklahoma's supermajority requirement applies to i 1[a]ll bills

for raising revenue•• or 'Ta]ny revenue bill," Olda. Const. art. V, § 33, In Olda. Auto. Deale;r.s
Ass'n v. State ex rel. Okla. Tax Comm'n, 401 P.3d 1152, 1153 (Okla. 2017), the Oklahoma
Supreme Court was presented with the "question of whether a measure revoking an
ex.emption from an already levied tax is a 'revenue bill' subject to Article V; Section 33's
requirements.'' The court held that the bill was not a bill for raising revenue that was subject
to Oklahoma's supermajority requirement because: (1) the bill did not "levy a tax in the strict
sense of the word"; and (2) the ".removal of an exemption from an already levied tax is
different from levying a tax in the first instance/' Id. at 1153~54.
At issue in the Oldahoma case was House Bill 2433 of the 2017 legislative session,
which removed a long-standing exemption from the state's sales tax for automobiles that were
otherwise subject to the state's excise tax.. The Oklahoma Supreme Court explained the effect
of H.B. 2433 as follows:
May 8) 2019
Page22
In 1933, the Legislature levied a sales tax on all tangible personal property-
including automobiles-and that sales tax has remained pait of our tax code ever
since. In 1935, however, the Legislature added an exemption for automobile sales
in the sales-tax provisions, so that automobiles were subject to only an automobile
excise tax from that point forward. H.B. 2433 revokes part of that sales tax
exemption so that sales of automobiles are once again subject to the sales tax, but
only a 1.25% sales tax. Sales of automobiles remain exempt from the remainder
of the sales tax levy. H.B. 2433 does not, however, levy any new sales or excise
tax, as the text of the measure and related provisions demonstrate,
For example, the sales tax levy can be found in 68 Okla. Stat. § 1354, imposing
a tax upon "the gross receipts or gross proceeds of each sale" of tangible personal
property and other specifically enumerated items. The last amendment increasing
the sales tax levy was in 1989, when the rate was raised to 4.5%. Nothing in
H.B. 2433 amends the sales tax levy contained in section 1354; the rate remains
4.5%. Likewise, the levy of the motor vehicle excise tax is found in 68 Okla.
Stat. § 2103. That levy has not been increased since 1985, and nothing in
H.B. 2433 amends the levy contained in section 2103. Both before and after the
enactrnent of H.B. 2433, the levy remains the same: every new vehicle is subject
to an excise tax at 3.25% of its value; and every used vehicle is subject to an
excise tax of $20.00 on the flrst $1,500.00 or less of its value plus 3.25% of its
remaining value, if any.
Olda. Auto. Dealers Ass'n, 401 P.3d at 1154-55 (emphasis added and footnotes omitted).
In determining that H.B. 2433 was not a bill for raising revenue that was subject to
Oldahoma~s supermajority requirement, the Oldahoma Supreme Court stated that:
At bottom, Petitioners 1 argument is that H.B. 2433 must be a revenue bill

because it causes people to have to pay more taxes. But to say that removal of an
exemption from taxation causes those previously exempt from the tax to pay more
taxes is merely to state the effect of removing an exemption. It does not,
however, transform the removal of the exemption into the levy of a tax, and it
begs the dispositive question of whether removal of an exemption is the "levy of a
tax in the strict sense." ... Yet:, despite their common effect (causing someone to
have to pay a tax they previously didn't have to pay), removing an exemption and
levying a new tax are distinct as a matter offact and law. Our Constitution's
restrictions on the enactment of revenue bills are aimed only at those bills that
actually levy a tax. The policy underlying those restrictions is not undercut in an
instance such as this, because the original levies of the sales tax on automobile
sales were subject to Article V, Section 33's restrictions.
May8,2019
Page 23
Olda. Auto. Dealers Ass'n, 401 P.3d at 1158 (emphasis added).
As discussed previously, the Oregon Supreme Court has adopted the same interpretation
for the term "bills for raising revenue'' with regard to Oregon's supermajority requirement and
its Origination Clause. Bobo v. Kulongosld, 107 P.3d 18, 24 (Or. 2005). In City of Seattle v.
O:r. Dep't of Revenue, 357 P.3d 979, 980 (Or. 2015), the plaintiff claimed that the Oregon
Legrnlature's passage of Senate Bill 495, which eliminated a tax ex.emption benefitting out-of-
state municipalities that had certain electt.i.c utility facilities in Oregon, violated Oregon's
Origination Clause because S.B. 495 was a bill for raising revenue that did not 01iginate in the
Oregon House of Representatives. However, the Oregon Supreme Court held that S,B. 495's
elimination of the tax exemption did not make it a "bill for raismg revenue" that was subject
to Oregon's Origination Clause. Id. at 985-88.
After applying its two-part test from Bobg, the Oregon Supreme Court determined that
S.B. 495 was not a bill for raising revenue because by Hdeclaring that a property interest held
by taxpayers previously exempt from taxation is now subject to taxation, the legislature did
not levy a tax." City of Seattle, 357 P.3d at 987. The court rejected the taxpayers' argument
that S.B. 495 was a bill for raising revenue because "the burden of increased taxes falls solely
on the newly-taxed entities,,, Id. at 988. Instead, the court found that:
We think, howeve1·, taxpayers' argument misses the made because it focuses

exclusively on the revenue effect of S.B. 495. As we stated in Bobo, the revenue
effect of a bill, in and of itself) does not determine if the bill is a ''billO for raising
revenue." 107 P.3d at 24 ("If a bill does bring money into the treasury1 the
re:tn.aining question is whether the bill possesses the essential features of a bill
levying a tax."). As we have e:x.plained, S.B. 495 repeals taxpayers' tax
exemption as outwof-state municipal corporations and places taxpayers on the
same footing as domestic electric cooperatives. The bill does not directly levy a
tax on taxpayers.
Id. (footnotes omitted).
After considering the case law from Oklahoma and Oregon, we believe it is reasonable
to interpret Nevada's two-thirds majority requirement in a manner that adopts and follows the
judicial interpretations placed on the similar supermajority i-equirements by the courts from
those states. Under those Judicial interpretations, we believe that Nevada's two-thirds
majority requirement does not apply to a bill which reduces or eliminates available tax
exemptions or tax credits because such a reduction or elimination does not change the existing
computation bases or statutory formulas used to calculate the underlying state taxes to which
the exemptions or credits are applicable. Consequently, it is the opinion of this office that
Nevada,s two-thirds majority requirement does not apply to a bill which reduces or eliminates
available tax exemptions or tax credits applicable to existing state taxes.
May 8, 2019
Page24
CONCLUSION
It is the opinion of this office that Nevada's two-thirds majority requirement does not
apply to a bill which extends until a later date--or revises or eliminates-a future decrease in
or future expiration of existing state taxes when that future decrease or expiration is not
legally operative and binding yet, because such a bill does not change-but maintains-the
existing computation bases currently in effect for the existing state taxes.
It also is the opinion of this office that Nevada's two~thirds majority requirement does
not apply to a bill which reduces or eliminates available tax exemptions or tax credits
applicable to existing state taxes, because such a reduction or elimination does not change the
existing computation. bases used to calculate the underlying state taxes to which the
exemptions or credits are applicable.
If you have any ftnther questions xegarding this matteri please do not hesitate to contact
this office.
Sincerely,
~'J.~
Brenda J, Erdoes
Legislative Counsel
~
Kevin C. Powers
Chief Litigation Counsel
KCP:dtm
RefNo 190502085934
F!le No, OPJlrdoesl9050413742
EXHIBIT D
EMERGENCY REQUEST of Senate Majority Leader
Senate Bill No. 551-Senator Cannizzaro
CHAPTER......... .
AN ACT relating to state :financial administration; eliminating
certain duties of the Department of Taxation relating to the
commerce tax and the payroll taxes imposed on certain
businesses; continuing the existing legally operative rates of
the payroll taxes imposed on certain businesses; revising
provisions goveming the credits against the payroll taxes
imposed on certain businesses for taxpayers who donate
money to a scholarship organization; eliminating the
education savings accounts program; making appropriations
for certain purposes relating to school safety and to provide
supplemental support of the operation of the school districts;
and providing other matters properly relating thereto.
Legislative Counsel's Digest:
Existing law imposes an annual commerce tax on each business entity whose
Nevada gross revenue in a fiscal year exceeds $4,000,000, with the rate of the
commerce tax based on the industry in which the business entity is primarily
engaged. (NRS 363C.200, 363C.300-363C.560) Existing law also imposes: (1) a
payroll tax on financial institutions and on mining companies subject to the tax on
the net proceeds of minerals, with the rate of the payroll tax set at 2 percent of the
amount of the wages, as defined under existing law, paid by the financial institution
or mining company during each calendar quarter in connection with its business
activities; and (2) a payroll tax on other business entities, with the rate of the
payroll tax set at 1.475 percent of the amount of the wages, as defined under
existing law but excluding the first $50,000 thereof, paid by the business entity
during each calendar quarter in connection with its business activities. (NRS
363A. l30, 363B.l 10, 612.190) However, a business entity that pays both the
payroll tax and the commerce tax is entitled to a credit against the payroll tax of a
certain amount of the commerce tax paid by the business entity. (NRS 363A.130,
363B.110)
Existing law further establishes a rate adjustment procedure that is used by the
Department of Taxation to determine whether the rates of the payroll taxes should
be reduced in future fiscal years under certain circumstances. Under the rate
adjustment procedure, on or before September 30 of each even-numbered year, the
Department must determine the combined revenue from the commerce tax and the
payroll taxes for the preceding fiscal year. If that combined revenue exceeds a
certain threshold amount, the Department must make additional calculations to
determine future reduced rates for the payroll taxes. However, any future reduced
rates for the payroll taxes do not go into effect and become legally operative until
July 1 of the following odd-numbered year. (NRS 360.203) This rate adjustment
procedure was enacted by the Legislature during the 2015 Legislative Session and
became effective on July 1, 2015. (Sections 62 and 114 of chapter 487, Statutes of
Nevada 2015, pp. 2896, 2955) Since July 1, 2015, no future reduced rates for the
payroll taxes have gone into effect and become legally operative based on the rate
adjustment procedure. As a result, the existing legally operative rates of the payroll
80th Session (2019)

-2-
taxes are still 2 percent and 1.475 percent, respectively. (NRS 363A.130,
363B.110)
Section 39 of this bill eliminates the rate adjustment procedure used by the
Department of Taxation to determine whether the rates of the payroll taxes should
be reduced in any fiscal year. Section 37 of this bill maintains and continues the
existing legally operative rates of the payroll taxes at 2 percent and 1.475 percent,
respectively, without any changes or reductions in the rates of those taxes pursuant
to the rate adjustment procedure for any fiscal year. Section 37 also provides that
the Department must not apply or use the rate adjustment procedure to determine
any future reduced rates for the payroll taxes for any fiscal year. Sections 2 and 3
of this bill make conforming changes.
Existing law establishes a credit against the payroll tax paid by certain
businesses equal to an amount which is approved by the Department and which
must not exceed the amount of any donation of money which is made by a taxpayer
to a scholarship organization that provides grants on behalf of pupils who are
members of a household with a household income which is not more than 300
percent of the federally designated level signifying poverty to attend schools in this
State, including private schools, chosen by the parents or legal guardians of those
pupils (NRS 363A.130, 363B.110) Under existing law, the Department: (1) is
required to approve or deny applications for the tax credit in the order in which the
applications are received by the Department; and (2) is authorized to approve
applications for each fiscal year until the amount of tax credits approved for the
fiscal year is the amount authorized by statute for that fiscal year. Assembly Bill
No. 458 of this legislative session establishes that for Fiscal Years 2019-2020 and
2020-2021, the amount authorized is $6,655,000 for each fiscal year. Sections 2.5
and 3.5 of this bill authorize the Department to approve, in addition to the amount
of credits authorized for Fiscal Years 2019-2020 and 2020-2021, an amount of tax
credits equal to $4,745,000 for each of those fiscal years. Section 30.75 of this bill:
(1) prohibits a scholarship organization from using a donation for which the donor
received a tax credit to provide a grant on behalf of a pupil unless the scholarship
organization used a donation for which the donor received a tax credit to provide a
grant on behalf of the pupil for the immediately preceding scholarship year or
reasonably expects to provide a grant of the same amount on behalf of the pupil for
each school year until the pupil graduates from high school; and (2) requires a
scholarship organization to repay the amount of any tax credit approved by the
Department if the scholarship organization violates this provision.
Senate Bill No. 302 (S.B. 302) of the 78th Session of the Nevada Legislature
established the education savings accounts program, pursuant to which grants of
money are made to certain parents on behalf of their children to defray the cost of
instruction outside the public school system. (Chapter 332, Statutes of Nevada
2015, p. 1824; NRS 353B.700-353B.930) Following a legal challenge of S.B. 302,
the Nevada Supreme Court held in Schwartz v. Lopez, 132 Nev. 732 (2016), that
the legislation was valid under Section 2 of Article 11 of the Nevada Constitution,
which requires a uniform system of common schools, and under Section 10 of
Article 11 of the Nevada Constitution, which prohibits the use of public money for
a sectarian purpose. However, the Nevada Supreme Court found that the
Legislature did not make an appropriation for the support of the education savings
accounts program and held that the use of any money appropriated for K-12 public
education for the education savings accounts program would violate Sections 2 and
6 of Article 11 of the Nevada Constitution. The Court enjoined enforcement of
section 16 of S.B. 302, which amended NRS 387.124 to require that all money
deposited in education savings accounts be subtracted from each school district's
quarterly apportionments from the State Distributive School Account. Because the
80th Session (2019)

-3-
Court has enjoined this provision of law and the Legislature has not made an
appropriation for the support of the education savings accounts program, the
education savings accounts program is not operating. Section 39.5 of this bill
eliminates the education savings accounts program. Sections 30.1-30.7 and 30.8-
30.95 of this bill make conforming changes related to the elimination of the
education savings accounts program.
Section 31 of this bill makes an appropriation for the costs of school safety
facility improvements. Section 36.5 of this bill makes an appropriation to provide
supplemental support to the operations of the school districts of this State,
distributed in amounts based on the 2018 enrollment of the school districts of this
State.
EXPLANATION - Matter in bo/ded italics is new; matter between brackets je~,afefialj is material to be omitted.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, REPRESENTED IN

SENATE AND ASSEMBLY, DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. (Deleted by amendment.)

Sec. 2. NRS 363A.130 is hereby amended to read as follows:
363A.130 1. [fawept as othenvise provided in NRS 360.203,
tH:efef There is hereby imposed an excise tax on each employer at
the rate of 2 percent of the wages, as defined in NRS 612.190, paid
by the employer during a calendar quarter with respect to
employment in connection with the business activities of the
employer.
2. The tax imposed by this section:
(a) Does not apply to any person or other entity or any wages
this State is prohibited from taxing under the Constitution, laws or
treaties of the United States or the Nevada Constitution.
(b) Must not be deducted, in whole or in part, from any wages of
persons in the employment of the employer.
3. Each employer shall, on or before the last day of the month
immediately following each calendar quarter for which the
employer is required to pay a contribution pursuant to
NRS 612.535:
(a) File with the Department a return on a form prescribed by
the Department; and
(b) Remit to the Depattment any tax due pursuant to this section
for that calendar quarter.
4. In determining the amount of the tax due pursuant to this
section, an employer is entitled to subtract from the amount
calculated pursuant to subsection 1 a credit in an amount equal to 50
percent of the amount of the commerce tax paid by the employer
pursuant to chapter 363C of NRS for the preceding taxable year.
The credit may only be used for any of the 4 calendar quarters
80th Session (2019)

-4-
immediately following the end of the taxable year for which the
commerce tax was paid. The amount of credit used for a calendar
quarter may not exceed the amount calculated pursuant to
subsection 1 for that calendar quarter. Any unused credit may not be
canied forward beyond the fourth calendar quarter immediately
following the end of the taxable year for which the commerce tax
was paid, and a taxpayer is not entitled to a refund of any unused
credit.
5. An employer who makes a donation of money to a
scholarship organization during the calendar quarter for which a
return is filed pursuant to this section is entitled, in accordance with
NRS 363A.139, to a credit equal to the amount authorized pursuant
to NRS 363A.139 against any tax otherwise due pursuant to this
section. As used in this subsection, "scholarship organization" has
the meaning ascribed to it in NRS 388D.260.
Sec. 2.5. NRS 363A.139 is hereby amended to read as
follows:
363A.139 1. Any taxpayer who is required to pay a tax
pursuant to NRS 363A.130 may receive a credit against the tax
otherwise due for any donation of money made by the taxpayer to a
scholarship organization in the manner provided by this section.
2. To receive the credit authorized by subsection 1, a taxpayer
who intends to make a donation of money to a scholarship
organization must, before making such a donation, notify the
scholarship organization of the taxpayer's intent to make the
donation and to seek the credit authorized by subsection 1. A
scholarship organization shall, before accepting any such donation,
apply to the Department of Taxation for approval of the credit
authorized by subsection 1 for the donation. The Department of
Taxation shall, within 20 days after receiving the application,
approve or deny the application and provide to the scholarship
organization notice of the decision and, if the application is
approved, the amount of the credit authorized. Upon receipt of
notice that the application has been approved, the scholarship
organization shall provide notice of the approval to the taxpayer
who must, not later than 30 days after receiving the notice, make the
donation of money to the scholarship organization. If the taxpayer
does not make the donation of money to the scholarship
organization within 3 0 days after receiving the notice, the
scholarship organization shall provide notice of the failure to
the Department of Taxation and the taxpayer forfeits any claim to
the credit authorized by subsection 1.
80th Session (2019)

-5-
3. The Department of Taxation shall approve or deny

applications for the credit authorized by subsection 1 in the order in
which the applications are received.
4. Except as otherwise provided in subsection 5, the
Department of Taxation may, for each fiscal year, approve
applications for the credit authorized by subsection 1 until the total
amount of the credits authorized by subsection 1 and approved by
the Department of Taxation pursuant to this subsection is:
(a) For Fiscal Year 2015-2016, $5,000,000;
(b) For Fiscal Year2016-2017, $5,500,000; and
(c) For each succeeding fiscal year, an amount equal to 110
percent of the amount authorized for the immediately preceding
fiscal year.
~ The amount of any credit which is forfeited pursuant to
subsection 2 must not be considered in calculating the amount of
credits authorized for any fiscal year.
5. fffiJ- Except as otherwise provided i11 this subsection, in
addition to the amount of credits authorized by subsection 4 for
Fiscal fYear 2017 2018,] Years 2019-2020 and 2020-2021, the
Department of Taxation may approve applications for the credit
authorized by subsection 1 for fthaij each of those fiscal ~
years until the total amount of the credits authorized by subsection 1
and approved by the Department of Taxation pursuant to this
subsection and subsection 5 of NRS 363B.l 19 is [$20,000,000.]
$4,745,000. The provisions of paragraph (c) of subsection 4 do not
apply to the amount of credits authorized by this subsection and the
amount of credits authorized by this subsection must not be
considered when determining the amount of credits authorized for a
fiscal year pursuant to that paragraph. If, in Fiscal Year pW+7-
~ 2019-2020 or 2020-2021, the amount of credits authorized
by subsection 1 and approved pursuant to this subsection is less than
[$20,000,000,] $4,745,000, the remaining amount of credits
pursuant to this subsection must be carried forward and made
available for approval during subsequent fiscal years until the total
amount of credits authorized by subsection 1 and approved pursuant
to this subsection is equal to [$20,000,000.] $9,490,000. The
amount of any credit which is forfeited pursuant to subsection 2
must not be considered in calculating the amount of credits
authorized pursuant to this subsection.
6. If a taxpayer applies to and is approved by the Department
of Taxation for the credit authorized by subsection 1, the amount of
the credit provided by this section is equal to the amount approved
by the Department of Taxation pursuant to subsection 2, which must
80th Session (2019)

-6-
not exceed the amount of the donation made by the taxpayer to a

scholarship organization. The total amount of the credit applied
against the taxes described in subsection 1 and otherwise due from a
taxpayer must not exceed the amount of the donation.
7. If the amount of the tax described in subsection 1 and
otherwise due from a taxpayer is less than the credit to which the
taxpayer is entitled pursuant to this section, the taxpayer may, after
applying the credit to the extent of the tax otherwise due, carry the
balance of the credit forward for not more than 5 years after the end
of the calendar year in which the donation is made or until the
balance of the credit is applied, whichever is earlier.
8. As used in this section, "scholarship organization" has the
meaning ascribed to it in NRS 388D.260.
Sec. 3. NRS 363B.l 10 is hereby amended to read as follows:
363B.110 1. [Except as otherv, ise provided in NRS 360.203,
1
.fuefe} There is hereby imposed an excise tax on each employer at

the rate of 1.475 percent of the amount by which the sum of all the
wages, as defined in NRS 612.190, paid by the employer during a
calendar quarter with respect to employment in connection with the
business activities of the employer exceeds $50,000.
2. The tax imposed by this section:
(a) Does not apply to any person or other entity or any wages
this State is prohibited from taxing under the Constitution, laws or
treaties of the United States or the Nevada Constitution.
(b) Must not be deducted, in whole or in part, from any wages of
persons in the employment of the employer.
3. Each employer shall, on or before the last day of the month
immediately following each calendar quarter for which the
employer is required to pay a contribution pursuant to
NRS 612.535:
(a) File with the Depmiment a return on a form prescribed by
the Department; and
(b) Remit to the Department any tax due pursuant to this chapter
for that calendar quarter.
4. In determining the amount of the tax due pursuant to this
section, an employer is entitled to subtract from the amount
calculated pursuant to subsection 1 a credit in an amount equal to 50
percent of the amount of the commerce tax paid by the employer
pursuant to chapter 363C of NRS for the preceding taxable year.
The credit may only be used for any of the 4 calendar quarters
immediately following the end of the taxable year for which the
commerce tax was paid. The amount of credit used for a calendar
quarter may not exceed the amount calculated pursuant to
80th Session (2019)

-7-
subsection 1 for that calendar quarter. Any unused credit may not be
carried forward beyond the fourth calendar quarter immediately
following the end of the taxable year for which the commerce tax
was paid, and a taxpayer is not entitled to a refund of any unused
credit.
5. An employer who makes a donation of money to a
scholarship organization during the calendar quarter for which a
return is filed pursuant to this section is entitled, in accordance with
NRS 363B.l 19, to a credit equal to the amount authorized pursuant
to NRS 363B.119 against any tax otherwise due pursuant to this
section. As used in this subsection, "scholarship organization" has
the meaning ascribed to it in NRS 388D.260.
Sec. 3.5. NRS 363B. l 19 is hereby amended to read as follows:
363B.119 1. Any taxpayer who is required to pay a tax
pursuant to NRS 363B.l 10 may receive a credit against the tax
otherwise due for any donation of money made by the taxpayer to a
scholarship organization in the manner provided by this section.
2. To receive the credit authorized by subsection 1, a taxpayer
who intends to make a donation of money to a scholarship
organization must, before making such a donation, notify., the
scholarship organization of the taxpayer's intent to make the
donation and to seek the credit authorized by subsection 1. A
scholarship organization shall, before accepting any such donation,
apply to the Department of Taxation for approval of the credit
authorized by subsection 1 for the donation. The Department of
Taxation shall, within 20 days after receiving the application,
approve or deny the application and provide to the scholarship
organization notice of the decision and, if the application is
approved, the amount of the credit authorized. Upon receipt of
notice that the application has been approved, the scholarship
organization shall provide notice of the approval to the taxpayer
who must, not later than 30 days after receiving the notice, make the
donation of money to the scholarship organization. If the taxpayer
does not make the donation of money to the scholarship
organization within 30 days after receiving the notice, the
scholarship organization shall provide notice of the failure to
the Department of Taxation and the taxpayer forfeits any claim to
the credit authorized by subsection 1.
3. The Department of Taxation shall approve or deny
applications for the credit authorized by subsection 1 in the order in
which the applications are received.
4. Except as otherwise provided in subsection 5, the
Department of Taxation may, for each fiscal year, approve
80th Session (2019)

-8-
applications for the credit authorized by subsection 1 until the total

amount of the credits authorized by subsection 1 and approved by
the Department of Taxation pursuant to this subsection is:
(a) For Fiscal Year 2015-2016, $5,000,000;
(b) For Fiscal Year 2016-2017, $5,500,000; and
(c) For each succeeding fiscal year, an amount equal to 110
percent of the amount authorized for the immediately preceding
fiscal year.
'-+ The amount of any credit which is forfeited pursuant to
subsection 2 must not be considered in calculating the amount of
credits authorized for any fiscal year.
5. In addition to the amount of credits authorized by subsection
4 for Fiscal fYear 2017 2018,] Years 2019-2020 and 2020-2021,
the Depaiiment of Taxation may approve applications for the credit
authorized by subsection 1 for fthat} each of those fiscal fyeaf}
years until the total amount of the credits authorized by subsection 1
and approved by the Department of Taxation pursuant to this
subsection and subsection 5 of NRS 363A.139 is [$20,000,000.J
$4,745,000. The provisions of paragraph (c) of subsection 4 do not
apply to the amount of credits authorized by this subsection and the
amount of credits authorized by this subsection must not be
considered when determining the amount of credits authorized for a
fiscal year pursuant to that paragraph. If, in Fiscal Year f2,,0-l-+-
~ 2019-2020 or 2020-2021, the amount of credits authorized
by subsection 1 and approved pursuant to this subsection is less than
[$20,000,000,] $4,745,000, the remaining amount of credits
pursuant to this subsection must be carried forward and made
available for approval during subsequent fiscal years until the total
amount of credits authorized by subsection 1 and approved pursuant
to this subsection is equal to [$20,000,000.] $9,490,000. The
amount of any credit which is forfeited pursuant to subsection 2
must not be considered in calculating the amount of credits
authorized pursuant to this subsection.
6. If a taxpayer applies to and is approved by the Department
of Taxation for the credit authorized by subsection 1, the amount of
the credit provided by this section is equal to the amount approved
by the Department of Taxation pursuant to subsection 2, which must
not exceed the amount of the donation made by the taxpayer to a
scholarship organization. The total amount of the credit applied
against the taxes described in subsection 1 and otherwise due from a
taxpayer must not exceed the amount of the donation.
7. If the amount of the tax described in subsection 1 and
otherwise due from a taxpayer is less than the credit to which the
80th Session (2019)

-9-
taxpayer is entitled pursuant to this section, the taxpayer may, after
applying the credit to the extent of the tax otherwise due, carry the
balance of the credit forward for not more than 5 years after the end
of the calendar year in which the donation is made or until the
balance of the credit is applied, whichever is earlier.
8. As used in this section, "scholarship organization" has the
meaning ascribed to it in NRS 388D.260.
Secs. 4-30. (Deleted by amendment.)
follows:
219A.140 1. To be eligible to serve on the Youth Legislature,
a person:
(a) Mustbe:
(1) A resident of the senatorial district of the Senator who
appoints him or her;
(2) Emolled in a public school or private school located in
the senatorial district of the Senator who appoints him or her; or
(3) A homeschooled child [or opt in child} who is otherwise
eligible to be emolled in a public school in the senatorial district of
the Senator who appoints him or her;
(b) Except as otherwise provided in subsection 3 of NRS
219A.150, must be:
(1) Emolled in a public school or private school in this State
in grade 9, 10 or 11 for the first school year of the term for which he
or she is appointed; or
(2) A homeschooled child [or opt in child} who is otherwise
eligible to emoll in a public school in this State in grade 9, 10 or 11
for the first school year of the term for which he or she is appointed;
and
(c) Must not be related by blood, adoption or marriage within
the third degree of consanguinity or affinity to the Senator who
appoints him or her or to any member of the Assembly who
collaborated to appoint him or her.
2. If, at any time, a person appointed to the Youth Legislature
changes his or her residency or changes his or her school of
emollment in such a manner as to render the person ineligible under
his or her original appointment, the person shall info1m the Board,
in writing, within 30 days after becoming aware of such changed
facts.
3. A person who wishes to be appointed or reappointed to the
Youth Legislature must submit an application on the form
prescribed pursuant to subsection 4 to the Senator of the senatorial
district in which the person resides, is emolled in a public school or
80th Session (2019)

-10-
private school or, if the person is a homeschooled child , [or opt in

ehlkl,f the senatorial district in which he or she is otherwise eligible
to be enrolled in a public school. A person may not submit an
application to more than one Senator in a calendar year.
4. The Board shall prescribe a form for applications submitted
pursuant to this section, which must require the signature of the
principal of the school in which the applicant is enrolled or, if the
applicant is a homeschooled child , [or opt in child,] the signature of
a member of the community in which the applicant resides other
than a relative of the applicant.
follows:
219A.150 1. A position on the Youth Legislature becomes
vacant upon:
(a) The death or resignation of a member.
(b) The absence of a inember for any reason from:
(1) Two meetings of the Youth Legislature, including,
without limitation, meetings conducted in person, meetings
conducted by teleconference, meetings conducted by
videoconference and meetings conducted by other electronic means;
(2) Two activities of the Youth Legislature;
(3) Two event days of the Youth Legislature; or
(4) Any combination of absences from meetings, activities or
event days of the Youth Legislature, if the combination of absences
therefrom equals two or more,
1.+ unless the absences are, as applicable, excused by the Chair or
Vice Chair of the Board.
(c) A change of residency or a change of the school of
enrollment of a member which renders that member ineligible under
his or her original appointment.
2. In addition to the provisions of subsection 1, a position on
the Youth Legislature becomes vacant if:
(a) A member of the Youth Legislature graduates from high
school or otherwise ceases to attend public school or private school
for any reason other than to become a homeschooled child ; [or opt
in child;] or
(b) A member of the Youth Legislature who is a homeschooled
child [or opt in child] completes an educational plan of instmction
for grade 12 or otherwise ceases to be a homeschooled child [or opt
in child] for any reason other than to enroll in a public school or
private school.
3. A vacancy on the Youth Legislature must be filled:
**!****
** ~ . **
* . * 80th Session (2019)
*"'* * * *
-11-
(a) For the remainder of the unexpired term in the same manner
as the original appointment, except that, if the remainder of the
unexpired term is less than 1 year, the member of the Senate who
made the original appointment may appoint a person who:
(1) Is enrolled in a public school or private school in this
State in grade 12 or who is a homeschooled child [or opt in child]
who is otherwise eligible to emoll in a public school in this State in
grade 12; and
(2) Satisfies the qualifications set forth in paragraphs (a) and
(c) of subsection 1 ofNRS 219A.140.
(b) Insofar as is practicable, within 30 days after the date on
which the vacancy occurs.
4. As used in this section, "event day" means any single
calendar day on which an official, scheduled event of the Youth
Legislature is held, including, without limitation, a course of
instruction, a course of orientation, a meeting, a seminar or any
other official, scheduled activity.
Sec. 30.2. NRS 385.007 is hereby amended to read as follows:
385.007 As used in this title, unless the context otherwise
requires:
1. "Achievement chruier school" means a public school
operated by a chmier management organization, as defined in NRS
388B.020, an educational management organization, as defined in
NRS 388B.030, or other person pursuant to a contract with the
Achievement School District pursuant to NRS 388B.210 and subject
to the provisions of chapter 388B ofNRS.
2. "Depruiment" means the Department of Education.
3. "English learner" has the meaning ascribed to it in 20 U.S.C.
§ 7801(20).
4. "Homeschooled child" means a child who receives
instruction at home and who is exempt from compulsory attendance
pursuant to NRS 392.070. [, but does not include an opt in child.]
5. "Local school precinct" has the meaning ascribed to it in
NRS 388G.535.
6. ["Opt in child" means a child for whom an education
savings account has been established pursuant to NR8 353B.850,
who is not enrolled full time in a public or private school and vt'110
receives all or a po1tion of his or her instruction from a participating
entity, as defined in NR8 351B.750.
--H "Public schools" means all kindergmiens and elementary
schools, junior high schools and middle schools, high schools,
charter schools and any other schools, classes and educational
programs which receive their support through public taxation and,
80th Session (2019)

-12-
except for charter schools, whose textbooks and courses of study are
under the control of the State Board.
f&} 7. "School bus" has the meaning ascribed to it in
NRS 484A.230.
f9.f 8. "State Board" means the State Board of Education.
{-l4t 9. "University school for profoundly gifted pupils" has
the meaning ascribed to it in NRS 388C.040.
Sec. 30.25. NRS 385B.060 is hereby amended to read as
follows:
385B.060 1. The Nevada Interscholastic Activities
Association shall adopt rules and regulations in the manner provided
for state agencies by chapter 233B of NRS as may be necessary to
carry out the provisions of this chapter. The regulations must
include provisions governing the eligibility and participation of
homeschooled children [and opt in children] in interscholastic
activities and events. In addition to the regulations governing
eligibility -[+
(a) AJ , a homeschooled child who wishes to pmiicipate must
have on file with the school district in which the child resides a
current notice of intent of a homeschooled child to participate in
programs and activities pursuant to NRS 3 88D. 070.
[(b) An opt in child who 1n1ishes to participate must have on file
1Nith the school district in ,vhich the child resides a current notice of
1
intent of an opt in child to participate in programs and activities

pursuant to NRS 3 88D. l 40.]
2. The Nevada Interscholastic Activities Association shall
adopt regulations setting forth:
(a) The standards of safety for each event, competition or other
activity engaged in by a spirit squad of a school that is a member of
the Nevada Interscholastic Activities Association, which must
substantially comply with the spirit rules of the National Federation
of State High School Associations, or its successor organization;
and
(b) The qualifications required for a person to become a coach
of a spirit squad.
3. If the Nevada Interscholastic Activities Association intends
to adopt, repeal or amend a policy, rule or regulation concerning or
affecting homeschooled children, the Association shall consult with
the No1ihern Nevada Homeschool Advisory Council and the
Southern Nevada Homeschool Advisory Council, or their successor
organizations, to provide those Councils with a reasonable
opportunity to submit data, opinions or arguments, orally or in
writing, concerning the proposal or change. The Association shall
80th Session (2019)

-13-
consider all written and oral submissions respecting the proposal or

change before taking final action.
4. As used in this section, "spirit squad" means any team or
other group of persons that is formed for the purpose of:
(a) Leading cheers or rallies to encourage support for a team that
patticipates in a sport that is sanctioned by the Nevada
Interscholastic Activities Association; or
(b) Participating in a competition against another team or other
group of persons to determine the ability of each team or group of
persons to engage in an activity specified in paragraph (a).
follows:
385B.150 1. A homeschooled child must be allowed to
patticipate in interscholastic activities and events in accordance with
the regulations adopted by the Nevada Interscholastic Activities
Association pursuant to NRS 385B.060 if a notice of intent of a
homeschooled child to participate in programs and activities is filed
for the child with the school district in which the child resides for
the current school year pursuant to NRS 388D.070.
2. [An opt in child must be allov,'ed to pa1iicipate in
interscholastic activities and events in accordance with the
regulations adopted by the Nevada Interscholastic Activities
Association pursuant to NRS 385B.060 if a notice of intent of an
~t in ehild to participate in programs and activities is filed for the
child ,,vith the school district in which the child resides for the
current school year p1:1rs1:1ant to NRS 3880.1'10.
~ The provisions of this chapter and the regulations adopted
pursuant thereto that apply to pupils emolled in public schools who
participate in interscholastic activities and events apply in the same
manner to homeschooled children [and opt in children] who
participate in interscholastic activities and events, including, without
limitation, provisions governing:
(a) Eligibility and qualifications for participation;
(b) Fees for participation;
(c) Insurance;
(d) Transportation;
(e) Requirements of physical examination;
(f) Responsibilities of pa:tticipants;
(g) Schedules of events;
(h) Safety and welfat·e of patticipants;
(i) Eligibility for awards, trophies and medals;
G) Conduct of behavior and performance of participants; and
(k) Disciplinary procedures.
80th Session (2019)

-14-

follows:
385B.160 No challenge may be brought by the Nevada
Interscholastic Activities Association, a school district, a public
school or a private school, a parent or guardian of a pupil enrolled in
a public school or a private school, a pupil enrolled in a public
school or private school, or any other entity or person claiming that
an interscholastic activity or event is invalid because homeschooled
children [or opt in children] are allowed to participate in the
interscholastic activity or event.
Sec. 30.4. NRS 3 85B.170 is hereby amended to read as
follows:
3 85B.170 A school district, public school or private school
shall not prescribe any regulations, rules, policies, procedures or
requirements governing the:
1. Eligibility of homeschooled children [or opt in children] to
participate in interscholastic activities and events pursuant to this
chapter; or
2. Participation of homeschooled children [or opt in children]
in interscholastic activities and events pursuant to this chapter,
'-+ that are more restrictive than the provisions governing eligibility
and participation prescribed by the Nevada Interscholastic Activities
Association pursuant to NRS 3 85B. 060.
Sec. 30.45. NRS 387.045 is hereby amended to read as
follows:
387.045 [Except as othenvise provided in NRS 353B.700 to
353B.930, inclusive:]
1. No portion of the public school funds or of the money
specially appropriated for the purpose of public schools shall be
devoted to any other object or purpose.
2. No portion of the public school funds shall in any way be
segregated, divided or set apart for the use or benefit of any
sectarian or secular society or association.
follows:
387.1223 1. On or before October l, Januaiy 1, April 1 and
July 1, each school district shall report to the Department, in the
form prescribed by the Depaiiment, the average daily enrollment of
pupils pursuant to this section for the immediately preceding quarter
of the school year.
2. Except as otherwise provided in subsection 3, basic suppmi
of each school district must be computed by:
80th Session (2019)

-15-
(a) Multiplying the basic support guarantee per pupil established

for that school district for that school year by the sum of:
(1) The count of pupils enrolled in kindergarten and grades 1
to 12, inclusive, based on the average daily enrolhnent of those
pupils during the quarter, including, without limitation, the count of
pupils who reside in the county and are enrolled in any charter
school and the count of pupils who are enrolled in a university
school for profoundly gifted pupils located in the county.
(2) The count of pupils not included under subparagraph (1)
who are enrolled full-time in a program of distance education
provided by that school district, a charter school located within that
school district or a university school for profoundly gifted pupils,
based on the average daily enrollment of those pupils during the
quarter.
(3) The count of pupils who reside in the county and are
enrolled:
(I) In a public school of the school district and are
concunently enrolled part-time in a program of distance education
provided by another school district or a charter school , [or receiving
8--f}Oition of his or her instruction from a pmticipating entity, as
defined in 1'.!RS 353B.750,] based on the average daily enrollment of
those pupils during the quarter.
(II) In a charter school and are concurrently emolled part-
time in a program of distance education provided by a school district
or another charter school , [or receiving a po1tion of his or her
instruction from a pa1ticipating entity, as defined in NRS
353B.750,] based on the average daily enrollment of those pupils
during the quarter.
(4) The count of pupils not included under subparagraph (1),
(2) or (3), who are receiving special education pursuant to the
provisions of NRS 388.417 to 388.469, inclusive, and 388.5251 to
388.5267, inclusive, based on the average daily enrollment of those
pupils during the quarter and excluding the count of pupils who
have not attained the age of 5 years and who are receiving special
education pursuant to NRS 3 88.43 5.
(5) Six-tenths the count of pupils who have not attained the
age of 5 years and who are receiving special education pursuant to
NRS 388.435, based on the average daily enrollment of those pupils
during the quarter.
( 6) The count of children detained in facilities for the
detention of children, alternative programs and juvenile forestry
camps receiving instruction pursuant to the provisions of
80th Session (2019)

-16-
NRS 388.550, 388.560 and 388.570, based on the average daily

enrollment of those pupils during the quarter.
(7) The count of pupils who are enrolled in classes for at
least one semester pursuant to subsection 1 of NRS 388A.471,
subsection 1 of NRS 388A.474, subsection 1 of NRS 392.074, or
subsection 1 of NRS 388B.280 or any regulations adopted pursuant
to NRS 388B.060 that authorize a child who is enrolled at a public
school of a school district or a private school or a homeschooled
child to participate in a class at an achievement charter school,
based on the average daily enrollment of pupils during the quarter
and expressed as a percentage of the total time services are provided
to those pupils per school day in proportion to the total time services
are provided during a school day to pupils who are counted pursuant
to subparagraph (1).
(b) Adding the amounts computed in paragraph (a).
3. Except as otherwise provided in subsection 4, if the
enrollment of pupils in a school district or a charter school that is
located within the school district based on the average daily
enrollment of pupils during the quarter of the school year is less
than or equal to 95 percent of the enrollment of pupils in the same
school district or charter school based on the average daily
enrollment of pupils during the same quarter of the immediately
preceding school year, the enrollment of pupils during the same
quarter of the immediately preceding school year must be used for
purposes of making the quarterly apportionments from the State
Distributive School Account to that school district or charter school
pursuant to NRS 387.124.
4. If the Department determines that a school district or charter
school deliberately causes a decline in the enrollment of pupils in
the school district or charter school to receive a higher
apportionment pursuant to subsection 3, including, without
limitation, by eliminating grades or moving into smaller facilities,
the enrollment number from the current school year must be used
for purposes of apportioning money from the State Distributive
School Account to that school district or charter school pursuant to
NRS 387.124.
5. The Depaiiment shall prescribe a process for reconciling the
quarterly reports submitted pursuant to subsection 1 to account for
pupils who leave the school district or a public school during the
school year.
6. Pupils who are excused from attendance at exaininations or
have completed their work in accordance with the rules of the board
of trustees must be credited with attendance during that period.
80th Session (2019)

-17-
7. Pupils who are incarcerated in a facility or institution

operated by the Department of Corrections must not be counted for
the purpose of computing basic support pursuant to this section. The
average daily attendance for such pupils must be reported to the
Department of Education.
8. Pupils who are enrolled in courses which are approved by
the Department as meeting the requirements for an adult to earn a
high school diploma must not be counted for the purpose of
computing basic support pursuant to this section.
follows:
387.124 Except as otherwise provided in this section and NRS
387.1241, 387.1242 and 387.528:
1. On or before August 1, November 1, February 1 and May 1
of each year, the Superintendent of Public Instruction shall
apportion the State Distributive School Account in the State General
Fund among the several county school districts, charter schools and
university schools for profoundly gifted pupils in amounts
approximating one-fourth of their respective yearly apportionments
less any amount set aside as a reserve. Except as otherwise provided
in NRS 387.1244, the apportionment to a school district, computed
on a yearly basis, equals the difference between the basic support
and the local funds available pursuant to NRS 387.163, minus all
the funds attributable to pupils who reside in the county but attend a
charter school, all the funds attributable to pupils who reside in the
county and are enrolled full-time or part-time in a program of
distance education provided by another school district or a charter
school t,t and all the funds attributable to pupils who are enrolled in
a university school for profoundly gifted pupils located in the
county . [and all the funds deposited in education savings accounts
established on behalf of children who reside in the county pursuant
to J'rRS 353B.700 to 353B.930, inclusive.] No apportionment may
be made to a school district if the amount of the local funds exceeds
the amount of basic support.
2. Except as otherwise provided in NRS 387.1244, in addition
to the apportionments made pursuant to this section, if a pupil is
enrolled part-time in a program of distance education and part-time
in a:
(a) Public school other than a charter school, an apportionment
must be made to the school district in which the pupil resides. The
school district in which the pupil resides shall allocate a percentage
of the apportionment to the school district or charter school that
*** *
* *
* *
* * 80th Session (2019)
* *
** **
-18-
provides the program of distance education in the amount set forth

in the agreement entered into pursuant to NRS 3 88. 854.
(b) Charter school, an apportionment must be made to the
charter school in which the pupil is enrolled. The charter school in
which the pupil is enrolled shall allocate a percentage of the
app01tionment to the school district or charter school that provides
the program of distance education in the amount set forth in the
agreement entered into pursuant to NRS 388.858.
3. The Superintendent of Public Instruction shall app01tion, on
or before August 1 of each year, the money designated as the
"Nutrition State Match" pursuant to NRS 387.105 to those school
districts that participate in the National School Lunch Program, 42
U.S.C. §§ 1751 et seq. The apportionment to a school district must
be directly related to the district's reimbursements for the Program
as compared with the total amount of reimbursements for all school
districts in this State that participate in the Program.
4. If the State Controller finds that such an action is needed to
maintain the balance in the State General Fund at a level sufficient
to pay the other appropriations from it, the State Controller may pay
out the apportionments monthly, each approximately one-twelfth of
the yearly app01tionment less any amount set aside as a reserve. If
such action is needed, the State Controller shall submit a report to
the Office of Finance and the Fiscal Analysis Division of the
Legislative Counsel Bureau documenting reasons for the action.
388.850 1. A pupil may enroll in a program of distance
education unless:
(a) Pursuant to this section or other specific statute, the pupil is
not eligible for enrollment or the pupil's enrollment is otherwise
prohibited;
(b) The pupil fails to satisfy the qualifications and conditions for
enrollment adopted by the State Board pursuant to NRS 388.874; or
( c) The pupil fails to satisfy the requirements of the program of
distance education.
2. A child who is exempt from compulsory attendance and is
enrolled in a private school pursuant to chapter 394 of NRS or is
being homeschooled is not eligible to enroll in or otherwise attend a
program of distance education, regardless of whether the child is
otherwise eligible for enrollment pursuant to subsection 1.
3. [An opt in child rvho is exempt from compulsory attendance
1
is not eligible to enroll in or othenvise attend a program of distance

education, regardless of ,vhether the child is othenvise eligible for
1
enrollment pursuant to subsection I, unless the opt in child receives
80th Session (2019)

-19-
only a portion of his or her instruction from a participating entity as

authorized pursuant to NRS 353B.850.
--4.f If a pupil who is prohibited from attending public school
pursuant to NRS 392.264 enrolls in a program of distance education,
the enrollment and attendance of that pupil must comply with all
requirements ofNRS 62F.100 to 62F.150, inclusive, and 392.251 to
392.271, inclusive.
follows:
388A.471 1. Except as otherwise provided in subsection 2,
upon the request of a parent or legal guardian of a child who is
enrolled in a public school of a school district or a private school, or
a parent or legal guardian of a homeschooled child , for opt in
ehl:14;-} the governing body of the charter school shall authorize the
child to patiicipate in a class that is not otherwise available to the
child at his or her school or homeschool [or from his or her
participating entity, as defined in 1-'JRS 353B.750,] or patiicipate in
an extracurricular activity at the chatter school if:
(a) Space for the child in the class or extracurricular activity is
available;
(b) The parent or legal guardian demonstrates to the satisfaction
of the governing body that the child is qualified to participate in the
class or extracurriculat· activity; and
(c) The child is t.-
---+(+l+)-+ltt1] a homeschooled child and a notice of intent of a
homeschooled child to participate in programs and activities is filed
for the child with the school district in which the child resides for
the current school year pursuant to NRS 388D.070. t,-er
(2) An opt in child and a notice of intent of an opt in child to
participate in programs and activities is filed for the child vAth the
school district in n41ich the child resides for the current school year
pursuant to }iRS 3 88D. 14 O.]
2. If the governing body of a charter school authorizes a child
to participate in a class or extracurricular activity pursuant to
subsection 1, the governing body is not required to provide
transportation for the child to attend the class or activity. A charter
school shall not authorize such a child to participate in a class or
activity through a program of distance education provided by the
charter school pursuant to NRS 388.820 to 388.874, inclusive.
3. The governing body of a charter school may revoke its
approval for a child to patiicipate in a class or extracurricular
activity at a charter school pursuant to subsection 1 if the governing
body determines that the child has failed to comply with applicable
80th Session (2019)

-20-
statutes, or applicable rules and regulations. If the governing body

so revokes its approval, neither the governing body nor the charter
school is liable for any damages relating to the denial of services to
the child.
4. The governing body of a charter school may, before
· authorizing a homeschooled child [or opt in child] to patiicipate in a
class or extracurricular activity pursuant to subsection 1, require
proof of the identity of the child, including, without limitation, the
birth certificate of the child or other documentation sufficient to
establish the identity of the child.
follows:
388B.290 1. During the sixth year that a school operates as
an achievement charter school, the Depmiment shall evaluate the
pupil achievement and school performance of the school. The
Executive Director shall provide the Department with such
information and assistance as the Department determines necessary
to perform such an evaluation. If, as a result of such an evaluation,
the Depmiment determines:
(a) That the achievement cha1ier school has made adequate
improvement in pupil achievement and school performance, the
governing body of the achievement charter school must decide
whether to:
(1) Convert to a public school under the governance of the
board of trustees of the school district in which the school is located;
(2) Seek to continue as a charter school subject to the
provisions of chapter 388A of NRS by applying to the board of
trustees of the school district in which the school is located, the
State Public Charter School Authority or a college or university
within the Nevada System of Higher Education to sponsor the
charter school pursuant to NRS 388A.220; or
(3) Remain an achievement charter school for at least 6 more
years.
(b) That the achievement chmier school has not made adequate
improvement in pupil achievement and school performance, the
Department shall direct the Executive Director to notify the parent
or legal guardian of each pupil enrolled in the achievement charter
school that the achievement chmier school has not made adequate
improvement in pupil achievement and school performance. Such
notice must include, without limitation, information regarding:
(1) Public schools which the pupil may be eligible to attend,
including, without limitation, charter schools, programs of distance
education offered pursuant to NRS 388.820 to 388.874, inclusive,
80th Session (2019)

-21-
and alternative programs for the education of pupils at risk of

dropping out of school pursuant to NRS 388.537;
(2) [The opportunity for the parent to establish an education
savings account pursuant to NRS 353B.850 and enroll the pupil in a
private school, have the pupil become an opt in child or provide for
the education of the pupil in any other manner authorized by
NRS 353B.900;
--+(+3)-1-1-] Any other alternatives for the education of the pupil that
are available in this State; and
-Ef4* (3) The actions that may be considered by the
Department with respect to the achievement charter school and the
manner in which the parent may provide input.
2. Upon deciding that the achievement charter school has not
made adequate improvement in pupil achievement and school
performance pursuant to paragraph (b) of subsection 1, the
Department must decide whether to:
(a) Convert the achievement charter school to a public school
under the governance of the board of trustees of the school district
in which the school is located; or
(b) Continue to operate the school as an achievement charter
school for at least 6 more years.
3. If the Department decides to continue to operate a school as
an achievement charter school pursuant to subsection 2, the
Executive Director must:
(a) Terminate the contract with the charter management
organization, educational management organization or other person
that operated the achievement charter school;
(b) Enter into a contract with a different charter management
organization, educational management organization or other person
to operate the achievement charter school after complying with the
provisions ofNRS 388B.210;
(c) Require the charter management organization, educational
management organization or other person with whom the Executive
Director enters into a contract to operate the achievement charter
school to appoint a new governing body of the achievement charter
school in the manner provided pursuant to NRS 388B.220, and must
not reappoint more than 40 percent of the members of the previous
governing body; and
( d) Evaluate the pupil achievement and school performance of
such a school at least each 3 years of operation thereafter.
4. If an achievement chatter school is conve1ted to a public
school under the governance of the board of trustees of a school
district pursuant to paragraph (a) of subsection 1, the board of
80th Session (2019)

-22-
trustees must employ any teacher, administrator or paraprofessional

who wishes to continue employment at the school and meets the
requirements of chapter 391 of NRS to teach at the school. Any
administrator or teacher employed at such a school who was
employed by the board of trustees as a postprobationary employee
before the school was conve1ted to an achievement charter school
and who wishes to continue employment at the school after it is
converted back into a public school must be employed as a
postprobationary employee.
5. If an achievement charter school becomes a chatter school
sponsored by the school district in which the charter school is
located, the State Public Charter School Authority or a college or
university within the Nevada System of Higher Education pursuant
to paragraph (a) of subsection 1, the school is subject to the
provisions of chapter 3 88A of NRS and the continued operation of
the chatter school in the building in which the school has been
operating is subject to the provisions ofNRS 388A.378.
6. As used in this section, "postprobationary employee" has the
meaning ascribed to it in NRS 391.650.
Sec. 30.75. NRS 388D.270 is hereby amended to read as
follows:
388D.270 1. A scholarship organization must:
(a) Be exempt from taxation pursuant to section 50l(c)(3) of the
Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C. § 50l(c)(3).
(b) Not own or operate any school in this State, including,
without limitation, a private school, which receives any grant money
pursuant to the Nevada Educational Choice Scholarship Program.
(c) Accept donations from taxpayers and other persons and may
also solicit and accept gifts and grants.
(d) Not expend more than 5 percent of the total amount of
money accepted pursuant to paragraph (c) to pay its administrative
expenses.
( e) Provide grants on behalf of pupils who are members of a
household that has a household income which is not more than 300
percent of the federally designated level signifying pove1ty to allow
those pupils to attend schools in this State chosen by the parents or
legal guardians of those pupils, including, without limitation, private
schools. The total amount of a grant provided by the scholarship
organization on behalf of a pupil pursuant to this paragraph must not
exceed $7,755 for Fiscal Year 2015-2016.
(f) Not limit to a single school the schools for which it provides
grants.
·1····.
** . .
* ~-
**
80th Session (2019)
... **
** *
-23-
(g) Except as otherwise provided in paragraph (e), not limit to

specific pupils the grants provided pursuant to that paragraph.
2. The maximum amount of a grant provided by the
scholarship organization pursuant to paragraph (e) of subsection 1
must be adjusted on July 1 of each year for the fiscal year beginning
that day and ending June 30 in a rounded dollar amount
corresponding to the percentage of increase in the Consumer Price
Index (All Items) published by the United States Department of
Labor for the preceding calendar year. On May 1 of each year, the
Department of Education shall determine the amount of increase
required by this subsection, establish the adjusted amounts to take
effect on July 1 of that year and notify each scholarship organization
of the adjusted amounts. The Department of Education shall also
post the adjusted amounts on its Internet website.
3. A grant provided on behalf of a pupil pursuant to subsection
1 must be paid directly to the school chosen by the parent or legal
guardian of the pupil.
4. A scholarship organization shall provide each taxpayer and
other person who makes a donation, gift or grant of money to the
scholarship organization pursuant to paragraph (c) of subsection 1
with an affidavit, signed under penalty of perjury, which includes,
without limitation:
(a) A statement that the scholarship organization satisfies the
requirements set forth in subsection 1; and
(b) The total amount of the donation, gift or grant made to the
scholarship organization.
5. Each school in which a pupil is enrolled for whom a grant is
provided by a scholarship organization shall maintain a record of the
academic progress of the pupil. The record must be maintained in
such a manner that the information may be aggregated and reported
for all such pupils if reporting is required by the regulations of the
Department of Education.
6. A scltolarsltip organization slta/1 not use a donation for
which a taxpayer received a tax credit pursuant to NRS 363A.139
or 363B.119 to provide a grant pursuant to tltis section 011 beltalf
of a pupil 1111less tlte scltolarsltip orga11izatio11 used a do11ation for
wlticlt tlte taxpayer received a tax credit pursuant to NRS
363A.139 or 363B.119 to provide a grant p11rsua11t to this section
011 beltalf of the pupil for the immediately preceding scltool year
or reasonably expects to be able to provide a grant p11rsua11t to tltis
section 011 belt a If of tlte pupil in at least the same amount for eaclt
school year until the pupil graduates from ltiglt school. A
scholarship organization tltat violates tltis subsection slta/1 repay
80th Session (2019)

-24-
to tlte Department of Taxation the amount of the tax credit

received by the taxpayer pursuant to NRS 363A.139 or 363B.119,
as applicable.
7. The Department of Education:
(a) Shall adopt regulations prescribing the contents of and
procedures for applications for grants provided pursuant to
subsection 1.
(b) May adopt such other regulations as the Department
determines necessary to carry out the provisions of this section.
f7.l 8. As used in this section, "private school" has the
meaning ascribed to it in NRS 394.103.
392.033 1. The State Board shall adopt regulations which
prescribe the courses of study required for promotion to high school,
including, without limitation, English language arts, mathematics,
science and social studies. The regulations may include the credits
to be earned in each course.
2. Except as otherwise provided in subsection 4, the board of
trustees of a school district shall not promote a pupil to high school
if the pupil does not complete the course of study or credits required
for promotion. The board of trustees of the school district in which
the pupil is enrolled may provide programs of remedial study to
complete the courses of study required for promotion to high school.
3. The board of trustees of each school district shall adopt a
procedure for evaluating the course of study or credits completed by
a pupil who transfers to a junior high or middle school from a junior
high or middle school in this State or from a school outside of this
State.
4. The board of trustees of each school district shall adopt a
policy that allows a pupil who has not completed the courses of
study or credits required for promotion to high school to be placed
on academic probation and to enroll in high school. A pupil who is
on academic probation pursuant to this subsection shall complete
appropriate remediation in the subject areas that the pupil failed to
pass. The policy must include the criteria for eligibility of a pupil to
be placed on academic probation. A parent or guardian may elect
not to place his or her child on academic probation but to remain in
grade 8.
5. A homeschooled child [or opt in child] who enrolls in a
public high school shall, upon initial enrollment:
(a) Provide documentation sufficient to prove that the child has
successfully completed the courses of study required for promotion
to high school through an accredited program of homeschool study
80th Session (2019)

-25-
recognized by the board of trustees of the school district. [or from a

participating entity, as applieable;J
(b) Demonstrate proficiency in the courses of study required for
promotion to high school through an examination prescribed by the
board of trustees of the school district; or
( c) Provide other proof satisfactory to the board of trustees of
the school district demonstrating competency in the courses of study
required for promotion to high school.
[6. As used in this section, "partieipating entity" has the
meaning ascribed to it in NRS 353B.750.]
follows:
392.070 Attendance of a child required by the provisions of
NRS 392.040 must be excused when:
1. The child is enrolled in a private school pursuant to chapter
394 ofNRS; or
2. A parent of the child chooses to provide education to the
child and files a notice of intent to homeschool the child with the
superintendent of schools of the school district in which the child
resides in accordance with NRS 388D.020. t,-&
3. The child is an opt in child and notice of such has been
provided to the school district in v.~~ich the child resides or the
charter school in 1.vhich the child was previously enrolled, as
applicable, in accordance ,,vith NRS 388D. l 10.]
392.072 1. The board of trustees of each school district shall
provide programs of special education and related services for
homeschooled children. The programs of special education and
related services required by this section must be made available:
(a) Only if a child would otherwise be eligible for participation
in programs of special education and related services pursuant to
NRS 388.417 to 388.469, inclusive, or NRS 388.5251 to 388.5267,
inclusive;
(b) In the same manner that the board of trustees provides, as
required by 20 U.S.C. § 1412, for the participation of pupils with
disabilities who are enrolled in private schools within the school
district voluntarily by their parents or legal guardians; and
( c) In accordance with the same requirements set forth in 20
U.S.C. § 1412 which relate to the participation of pupils with
disabilities who are enrolled in private schools within the school
district voluntarily by their parents or legal guardians.
80th Session (2019)

-26-
2. The programs of special education and related services

required by subsection 1 may be offered at a public school or
another location that is appropriate.
3. The board of trustees of a school district may, before
providing programs of special education and related services to a
homeschooled child [or opt in child] pursuant to subsection 1,
requiry proof of the identity of the child, including, without
limitation, the birth certificate of the child or other documentation
sufficient to establish the identity of the child.
4. The Department shall adopt such regulations as are
necessary for the boards of trustees of school districts to provide the
programs of special education and related services required by
subsection 1.
5. As used in this section, "related services" has the meaning
ascribed to it in 20 U.S.C. § 1401.
follows:
392.074 1. Except as otherwise provided in subsection 1 of
NRS 392.072 for programs of special education and related services,
upon the request of a parent or legal guardian of a child who is
enrolled in a private school or a parent or legal guardian of a
homeschooled child , [or opt in child,] the board of trustees of the
school district in which the child resides shall authorize the child to
participate in any classes and extracurricular activities, excluding
sports, at a public school within the school district if:
(a) Space for the child in the class or extracunicular activity is
available;
(b) The parent or legal guardian demonstrates to the satisfaction
of the board of trustees that the child is qualified to participate in the
class or extracurricular activity; and
(c) If the child is t
(I) A] a homeschooled child, a notice of intent of a
homeschooled child to pmticipate in programs and activities is filed
for the child with the school district for the cunent school year
pursuant to NRS 388D.070. t,-eF
(2) An opt in child, a notice of intent of an opt in child to
participate in programs and activities is filed for the child with the
sehBol district for the current school year pursuant to
NR8 388D. l 40.]
--+ If the board of trustees of a school district authorizes a child to
participate in a class or extracunicular activity, excluding sp01ts,
pursuant to this subsection, the board of trustees is not required to
provide transportation for the child to attend the class or activity. A
80th Session (2019)

-27-
homeschooled child [or opt in child] must be allowed to participate

in interscholastic activities and events governed by the Nevada
Interscholastic Activities Association pursuant to chapter 385B of
NRS and interscholastic activities and events, including sports,
pursuant to subsection 3.
2. The board of trustees of a school district may revoke its
approval for a pupil to participate in a class or extracurricular
activity at a public school pursuant to subsection 1 if the board of
trustees or the public school determines that the pupil has failed to
comply with applicable statutes, or applicable rules and regulations
of the board of trustees. If the board of trustees revokes its approval,
neither the board of trustees nor the public school is liable for any
damages relating to the denial of services to the pupil.
3. In addition to those interscholastic activities and events
governed by the Nevada Interscholastic Activities Association
pursuant to chapter 385B of NRS, a homeschooled child [or opt in
ehll4]- must be allowed to participate in interscholastic activities and
events, including sports, if a notice of intent of a homeschooled
child [or opt in child} to paiticipate in programs and activities is
filed for the child with the school district for the cutTent school year
pursuant to NRS 388D.070 . [or 388D.I 40, as applicable.] A
homeschooled child [or opt in child] who participates in
interscholastic activities and events at a public school pursuant to
this subsection must participate within the school district of the
child's residence through the public school which the child is
otherwise zoned to attend. Any rules or regulations that apply to
pupils enrolled in public schools who participate in interscholastic
activities and events, including sp01ts, apply in the same manner to
homeschooled children [and opt in children] who paiticipate in
interscholastic activities and events, including, without limitation,
provisions governing:
(a) Eligibility and qualifications for paiticipation;
(b) Fees for participation;
(c) Insurance;
(d) Transportation;
(e) Requirements of physical exainination;
(f) Responsibilities of participants;
(g) Schedules of events;
(h) Safety and welfare of participants;
(i) Eligibility for awards, trophies and medals;
(j) Conduct of behavior and performance of participants; and
(k) Disciplinary procedures.
80th Session (2019)

-28-
4. If a homeschooled child [or opt in child] participates in

interscholastic activities and events pursuant to subsection 3:
(a) No challenge may be brought by the Association, a school
district, a public school or a private school, a parent or guardian of a
pupil enrolled in a public school or a private school, a pupil enrolled
in a public school or a private school, or any other entity or person
claiming that an interscholastic activity or event is invalid because
the homeschooled child [or opt in child] is allowed to participate.
(b) Neither the school district nor a public school may prescribe
any regulations, rules, policies, procedures or requirements
governing the eligibility or participation of the homeschooled child
[or opt in child] that are more restrictive than the provisions
governing the eligibility and participation of pupils enrolled in
public schools.
5. The board of trustees of a school district:
(a) May, before authorizing a homeschooled child [or opt in
eh-ilef to participate in a class or extracurricular activity, excluding
sports, pursuant to subsection 1, require proof of the identity of the
child, including, without limitation, the birth ce11ificate of the child
or other documentation sufficient to establish the identity of the
child.
(b) Shall, before allowing a homeschooled child fer opt in child]
to participate in interscholastic activities and events govemed by the
Nevada Interscholastic Activities Association pursuant to chapter
3 85B of NRS and interscholastic activities and events pursuant to
subsection 3, require proof of the identity of the child, including,
without limitation, the birth certificate of the child or other
documentation sufficient to establish the identity of the child.
follows:
392.466 1. Except as otherwise provided in this section, any
pupil who commits a battery which results in the bodily injmy of an
employee of the school or who sells or distributes any controlled
substance while on the premises of any public school, at an activity
sponsored by a public school or on any school bus must, for the first
occurrence, be suspended or expelled from that school, although the
pupil may be placed in another kind of school, for at least a period
equal to one semester for that school. For a second occurrence, the
pupil must be permanently expelled from that school and:
(a) Enroll in a private school pursuant to chapter 394 of NRS f;
become an opt in child] or be homeschooled; or
(b) Enroll in a program of independent study provided pursuant
to NRS 389.155 for pupils who have been suspended or expelled
80th Session (2019)

-29-
from public school or a program of distance education provided

pursuant to NRS 388.820 to 388.874, inclusive, if the pupil qualifies
for enrollment and is accepted for enrollment in accordance with the
requirements of the applicable program.
2. Except as otherwise provided in this section, any pupil who
is found in possession of a firearm or a dangerous weapon while on
the premises of any public school, at an activity sponsored by a
public school or on any school bus must, for the first occurrence, be
expelled from the school for a period of not less than 1 year,
although the pupil may be placed in another kind of school for a
period not to exceed the period of the expulsion. For a second
occurrence, the pupil must be permanently expelled from the school
and:
(a) Enroll in a private school pursuant to chapter 394 of NRS t,
become an opt in child] or be homeschooled; or
3. Except as otherwise provided in this section, if a pupil is
deemed a habitual disciplinary problem pursuant to NRS 392.4655,
the pupil may be:
(a) Suspended from the school for a period not to exceed one
school semester as determined by the seriousness of the acts which
were the basis for the discipline; or
(b) Expelled from the school under extraordinary circumstances
as determined by the principal of the school.
4. If the pupil is expelled, or the period of the pupil's
suspension is for one school semester, the pupil must:
(a) Enroll in a private school pursuant to chapter 394 of NRS t,
-become an opt in child] or be homeschooled; or
5. The superintendent of schools of a school district may, for
good cause shown in a particular case in that school district, allow a
modification to the suspension or expulsion requirement, as
80th Session (2019)

-30-
applicable, of subsection 1, 2 or 3 if such modification is set forth in

writing.
6. This section does not prohibit a pupil from having in his or
her possession a knife or firearm with the approval of the principal
of the school. A principal may grant such approval only in
accordance with the policies or regulations adopted by the board of
trustees of the school district.
7. Any pupil in grades 1 to 6, inclusive, except a pupil who has
been found to have possessed a firearm in violation of subsection 2,
may be suspended from school or permanently expelled from school
pursuant to this section only after the board of trustees of the school
district has reviewed the circumstances and approved this action in
accordance with the procedural policy adopted by the board for such
issues.
8. A pupil who is patiicipating in a program of special
education pursuant to NRS 388.419, other than a pupil who receives
early intervening services, may, in accordance with the procedural
policy adopted by the board of trustees of the school district for such
matters, be:
(a) Suspended from school pursuant to this section for not more
than 10 days. Such a suspension may be imposed pursuant to this
paragraph for each occurrence of conduct proscribed by
subsection 1.
(b) Suspended from school for more than 10 days or
permanently expelled from school pursuant to this section only after
the board of trustees of the school district has reviewed the
circumstances and determined that the action is in compliance with
the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400
et seq.
9. As used in this section:
(a) "Battery" has the meaning ascribed to it in paragraph (a) of
subsection 1 ofNRS 200.481.
(b) "Dangerous weapon" includes, without limitation, a
blackjack, slungshot, billy, sand-club, sandbag, metal knuckles, dirk
or dagger, a nunchaku or trefoil, as defined in NRS 202.350, a
butterfly knife or any other lmife described in NRS 202.350, a
switchblade knife as defined in NRS 202.265, or any other object
which is used, or threatened to be used, in such a manner and under
such circumstances as to pose a threat of, or cause, bodily injury to a
person.
(c) ''Firearm" includes, without limitation, any pistol, revolver,
shotgun, explosive substance or device, and any other item included
80th Session (2019)

-31-
within the definition of a "firearm" in 18 U.S.C. § 921, as that

section existed on July 1, 1995.
10. The provisions of this section do not prohibit a pupil who is
suspended or expelled from enrolling in a charter school that is
designed exclusively for the enrollment of pupils with disciplinary
problems if the pupil is accepted for enrollment by the charter
school pursuant to NRS 388A.453 or 388A.456. Upon request, the
governing body of a charter school must be provided with access to
the records of the pupil relating to the pupil's suspension or
expulsion in accordance with applicable federal and state law before
the governing body makes a decision concerning the enrollment of
the pupil.
Sec. 31. 1. There is hereby appropriated from the State
General Fund to the School Safety Account the following sums:
For the Fiscal Year 2019-2020 ............................... $8,340,845
For the Fiscal Year 2020-2021 ............................... $8,404,930
2. The Department of Education shall transfer from the
appropriation made by subsection 1 to provide grants utilizing a
competitive grant process based on demonstrated need, within the
limits of legislative appropriation, to school districts and to charter
schools for school safety facility improvements.
3. Any remaining balance of the appropriation made by
subsection 1 for Fiscal Year 2019-2020 must be added to the money
appropriated for Fiscal Year 2020-2021 and may be expended as
that money is expended. Any remaining balance of the appropriation
made by subsection 1 for Fiscal Year 2020-2021, including any such
money added from the previous fiscal year, must not be committed
for expenditure after June 30, 2021, and must be reverted to the
State General Fund on or before September 17, 2021.
Secs. 32-36. (Deleted by amendment.)
Sec. 36.5. 1. There is hereby appropriated from the State
General Fund to the Account for Programs for hmovation and the
Prevention of Remediation created by NRS 387.1247 the following
sums:
For the Fiscal Year 2019-2020 ............................. $35,081,155
For the Fiscal Year 2020-2021 ............................. $36,848,070
2. The Department of Education shall transfer the sums of
money identified in this subsection from the Account for Programs
for Innovation and the Prevention of Remediation to school districts
for block grants for the purpose of providing supplemental support
to the operation of the school districts. The amount to be transferred
for the fiscal year shown is:
··1·
** . : * *•**
* ~-
.~ **
80th Session (2019)
***
-32-
2019-2020 2020-2021
Carson City School District $631,574 $663,384
Churchill County School District 255,461 268,328
Clark County School District 25,892,878 27,197,012
Douglas County School District 458,566 481,662
Elko County School District 772,986 811,919
Esmeralda County School District 5,551 5,831
Eureka County School District 21,379 22,456
Humboldt County School District 273,189 286,949
Lander County School District 78,860 82,832
Lincoln County School District 76,533 80,388
Lyon County School District 681,887 716,231
Mineral County School District 42,868 45,027
Nye County School District 410,922 431,619
Pershing County School District 53,244 55,925
Storey County School District 34,229 35,953
Washoe County School District 5,294,592 5,561,262
White Pine County School District 96,435 101,292
3. Any remaining balance of the transfers made by subsection

2 for Fiscal Year 2019-2020 must be added to the money transferred
for Fiscal Year 2020-2021 and may be expended as that money is
expended. Any remaining balance of the transfers made by
subsection 2 for Fiscal Year 2020-2021, including any such money
added from the previous fiscal year, must be used for the purpose
identified in subsection 2 and does not revert to the State General
Fund.
Sec. 37. 1. The Legislature hereby finds and declares that the
purpose and intent of this act is to maintain and continue the
existing legally operative rates of the taxes imposed pursuant to
NRS 363A.130 and 363B.110, at 2 percent and 1.475 percent,
respectively, without any changes or reductions in the rates of those
taxes pursuant to NRS 360.203, as that section existed before the
effective date of this act, for any fiscal year beginning on or after
July 1, 2015.
2. Notwithstanding any other provisions of law, in order to
accomplish and carry out the purpose and intent of this act:
(a) Any determinations or decisions made or actions taken
before the effective date of this section by the Department of
Taxation pursuant to NRS 360.203, as that section existed before the
effective date of this section:
(1) Are superseded, abrogated and nullified by the provisions
of this act; and
80th Session (2019)

-33-
(2) Have no legal force and effect; and

(b) The Department shall not, under any circumstances, apply or
use those determinations, decisions or actions as a basis, cause or
reason to reduce the rates of the taxes imposed pursuant to NRS
363A.130 and 363B.110 for any fiscal year beginning on or after
July 1, 2015.
Sec. 38. (Deleted by amendment.)
Sec. 39. NRS 360.203 is hereby repealed.
Sec. 39.5. NRS 219A.050, 353B.700, 353B.710, 353B.720,
353B.730, 353B.740, 353B.750, 353B.760, 353B.770, 353B.820,
353B.850, 353B.860, 353B.870, 353B.880, 353B.900, 353B.910,
353B.920, 353B.930, 388D.100, 388D.110, 388D.120, 388D.130
and 388D.140 are hereby repealed.
Sec. 40. 1. This section and sections 2, 3, 37 and 39 of this
act become effective upon passage and approval.
2. Sections 2.5, 3.5, 30.1 to 31, inclusive, 36.5 and 39.5 of this
act become effective on July 1, 2019.
20 - - 19
80th Session (2019)

EXHIBIT E
GENERAL FUND REVENUES - ECONOMIC FORUM MAY 1, 2017, FORECAST (UPDATED 11/9/2017)
ACTUAL: FY 2014 THROUGH FY 2016 AND FORECAST: FY 2017 THROUGH FY 2019
nlC FORUM'S FORECAST FOR FY 2017, FY 2018, AND FY 2019 APPROVED AT THE MAY 1, 2017, MEETING
ADJUSTED FOR MEASURES APPROVED BY THE 2017 LEGISLATURE (79th SESSION)
I ECONOMIC FORUM MAY 1, 2017, FORECAST
~ FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019

FY 2015 % FY 2016 % % % %
FY 2014 % FORECAST FORECAST FORECAST
ACTUAL Change ACTUAL Change Change Change Change
ACTUAL Change
$51,733,594 97.3o/c $34,674,918 -33.0o/c $18,774,000 -45.9o/c $45,716,000 143.5o/c $46,034,000 0.7%
$26,221,970 -76.4o/c
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$68,648 $6,200 $7,500 $7,500 0.0%
ID
$51733615 9 3°0 $34 743 566 $18 780 200 $45 723 500 $46 041 500 0 '•
$26 221 970
$994,764,970 6.8o/c $1,036,549,227 4.2o/c $1,087,212,000 $1,154,724,000 6.2o/c $1,214,518,000 5.2o/c

$931,319,687 4.8o/c
$9,726,146 5.8o/c $10,155,240 4.4o/c $10,600,000 $11,259,000 6.2o/c $11,842,000 5.2o/c
$9,194,669 4.6o/c
$4,334,753 6.0o/c $4,506,053 4.0o/c $4,757,000 $5,052,000 6.2o/c $5,314,000 5.2o/c
$4,088,755 5.0o/c
$15, 166,566 6.0o/c $15,764,607 3.9o/c $16,648,000 $17,682,000 6.2o/c $18,597,000 5.2o/c
$14,305,300 5.0o/c
$9,461,562 7.5% $10,028,644 6.0% $10,591,000 $11,249,000 6.2% $11,831,000 5.2%
$8,797,760 6.9%
8', $1 033 453 997 6 8°0 $1 077 003 772 2°0 $1 129 808 000 $1199 966 000 6 °o $1 262 102 000 5 2'o
$967706 171
1.6% $790,773,974 1.1% ~730,974,000 4.3% $746,753,000 2.2% $76~,683,000 2.9%

:redlts ~682,311,672 0.5% $693/32,048
$0 -$4,288, 194 $0 . $0 $0 '
$0 -$20,461,554 $0 $0 $0
iTax Credits ITC-2]
.§2 .§2 .§2 .§2 .§2
;edits ITC-4] .$.0
,$Q -S24 749 748 ,$Q .,$Q
' -
$682,311,672 $693,232,048 $676,024,226 $730,974,000 8.1% $746,753,000 2.2% $768,683,000 2.9%
idits
$2,964 7.5o/c $3,261 10.0o/c $3,400 4.3o/c $3,600 5.9o/c $3,700 2.8o/c
$2,758 -10.1°/c
$7,456 -19.5o/c $9,293 24.6o/c $9,900 6.5o/c $10,000 1.0o/c $10,000 O.Oo/c
$9,258 6.4o/c
$500 $700 $0 -100.0o/c $0 $0
$0
$337,544 -95.7o/c $4,069,112 1105.5o/c $2,100,000 -48.4o/c $775,000 -63.1o/c $775,000 O.Oo/c
$7,862,472 439.7o/c
$8,291,051 -0.2o/c $8,225,963 -0.8o/c $8,150,000 -0.9o/c $8,128,000 -0.3o/c $8,193,000 0.8o/c
$8,305,289 -1.2o/c
$11,164,523 -1.9o/c $10,861,213 -2.7o/c $10,660,000 -1.9o/c $10,558,000 -1.0o/c $10,458,000 -0.9o/c
$11,383,000 -7.4o/c
$6,522,917 1.8o/c $6,450,491 -1.1o/c $6,451,000 O.Oo/c $6,454,000 O.Oo/c $6,463,000 0.1o/c
$6,410,111 -0.6o/c
$1,733,482 157.9o/c $1,780,785 2.7o/c $1,020,000 -42.7o/c $750,000 -26.5o/c $800,000 6.7o/c
$672,263 -49.9o/c
$35,000 -5.4o/c $34,000 -2.9o/c $33,500 -1.5°/c $33,000 -1.5°/c $32,500 -1.5o/c
$37,000 -8.6o/c
$42,000 133.3o/c $42,000 O.Oo/c $36,000 -14.3°/c $36,000 0.0o/c $36,000 O.Oo/c
$18,000 O.Oo/c
$500,000 -17.2o/c $500,000 O.Oo/c $500,000 O.Oo/c $500,000 O.Oo/c $500,000 O.Oo/c
$604,167 38.1o/c
$61,000 -18.7o/c $63,000 3.3o/c $56,000 -11.1o/c $55,000 -1.8o/c $54,000 -1.8o/c
$75,000 177.8o/c
$200,000 -71.4o/c $175,000 -12.5o/c $100,000 -42.9o/c $100,000 O.Oo/c $100,000 0.0o/c
$700,000 -9.7o/c
$281,000 -3.1o/c $279,500 -0.5o/c $273,500 -2.1o/c $273,000 -0.2o/c $272,000 -0.4o/c
$290,000 6.0o/c
$28,406 -4.5o/c $36,391 28.1o/c $15,000 -58.8o/c $16,000 6.7o/c $17,000 6.3o/c
$29,736 -14.8o/c
$107,822 $115,214 $124,700 $117,000 $115,300
$105,341
$722 547 713 $733 41!.l !!9Z $760 507 QQO $Z74 561 6QQ $7!;16 512 50Q
:EDITS $718 816 06Z
-$24, 749,748 .§2 .§2 .§2
$722 547713 $708 670 149 $260 507 000 $774 561 60Q $796 512 500
DITS $718 816 067
$130,861,416 $111,994,620 $101,737,000 $106,663,000 $109,398,000

$139,156,240
$14,965,649 $16,536,346 $25, 149,000 $26, 150,000 $27,233,000
$14,979,978
$145 827 065 $128 530 966 $126 886 000 $132 813 000 $136 631 000
$154 136 218
$143,507,593 $203,411,000 41.7% $186,046,000 -8.5% $194,976,000 4.8%
TAX
$11,898,532 $22,832,000 91.9% $18,848,000 -17.4% $24,819,000 31.7%
$92,774,433 16.5o/c $153,033,176 65.0o/c $174,999,000 14.4o/c $172,577,000 -1.4o/c $170,155,000 -1.4o/c
$79,628,983 -4.1o/c
~ FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019

FY 2016 % % % %
FY 2014 % FY 2015 % FORECAST FORECAST FORECAST
ACTUAL Change Change Change Change
ACTUAL Change ACTUAL Change
ED
::tJ.E.!1[9-16][10-16]
$517,135,234 33.4% $558,908,000 8.1% $587,972,000 5.2% $615,734,000 4.7%

$361,095,880 -0.6% $387,769,692 7.4%
iQ iQ iQ iQ
$387,769,692 $51?,135,234 $558,908,000 8.1% $587,972,000 5.2% $615,734,000 4.7%
,dlts
·$82,621 ·.· $0. $0 $0

$0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0
.T~x Credits [TC-2]
$0 $0 $0 $0
redlts [TC-4] $0
~$4,401 ,540 $0 $0 $0
edits [TC-5] $0
iQ iQ iQ 1Q.
1Q
'6]
!.!l $361095880
iQ
$382 269 692
-$448~ Hll
$512 651 023 $558 908 000
~
9 o•.
~
$582 922 ooo 5 2°.
~
$615 234 ooo ..
12-16]
$27,188,910 12.6% $28,224,000 3.8% $29,819,000 5.7% $31,372,000 5.2%
$23,789,898 1.8% $24,144,270 1.5%
iQ iQ iQ iQ
$27,188,910 $28,224,000 3.8% $29,819,000 5.7% $31,372,000 5.2%
$24,144,270
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0
Tax Credits [TC-2] $0
$0 $0 $0 $0
·edits [TC-4] $0
$0 $0 $0 $0
\dtts [TC-5] $0
1Q iQ ; (.§2 iQ iQ
'.6]
iQ .mu . .mu 1Q $0;
t2a 224 oog $2,1819 000 ~31 3:Z2 ()QC) 5 0

§23 289 898 $24144 2fo s22 186 910
1[11-16] 2.8%
$21,938,368 $22,234,000 1.3% $22,775,000 $23,403,000
iQ iQ iQ iQ
$21,938,368 $22,234,000 1.3% $22,775,000 $23,403,000 2.8%
$0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0
Tax Credits [TC-2]
$0 . $0 . $0 $0
'edits [TC-4]
$0 .• $0. $0 . $0
idits [TC-5]
iQ ... !Q 1Q .§2•
:6] 1Q 1Q
1Q 12.
$21938368 §22 zz5 oog
. 0 $566 262 51~ §640 566 OOQ $620 509 000

$384 885 2Z8 $41191396,
iQ -$88,763,000 -$93,023,000
16]
$411913962 $566 262 513 $551803000 $577 486 000
:DITS
-$82,621 $0 $0 $0
$0
$0 $0 $0 $0
ITax Credits [TC-2] $0
$0 $0 $0 $0
;edits [TC-4] $0
. -$4,401,540. . -$6,098,460 "$26,050,000 • ,$6,655,000
idits [TC-5] $0
1Q .§2. ~$69,000 -$138,000 · '$207,000.,
,6]
1Q ·S4 464 Hl1 0 :1,6 Hl146Q ~S26 168 OQ!l -S6 862 oog ·
gfags2 $561778352 ms2s 911 s<ia -6 2°/o $525 615000 $570 624 0()() 8 6°0
iMs $384885778 $4)1
3ENERAL FUND REVENUES - ECONOMIC FORUM MAY 1, 2017, FORECAST (UPDATED 11/9/2017)
~IC FORUM'S FORECAST FOR FY 2017, FY 2018, AND FY 2019 APPROVED AT THE MAY 1, 2017, MEETING
J
=
:D
1-16]
FY 2014
ACTUAL
$263,5311578
%
Change
.6,0%
FY 2015
ACTUAL
$305,075,537
··- . ._ --·--,,
$0 '
%
Change
15.8%
FY 2016
ACTUAL
$~35! 118,754
,$0
%
Change
9.8%
FY 2017
FORECAST
$378,200,000
$0
%
Change
12.9%
FY 2018
FORECAST
$395,753,000
$0
%
Change
4.6%
FY 2019
FORECAST
$410,610,000
$d
%
Change
3.8%
,Tax .credit~ [TC-2] ' $0 '$0 '$0 $0 $0'

'.edits [TC-4] $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
"
!dits [TC-3] . -$12,410,882 0
$26,005,450 -$24,000,000 ~$24,000,000 ~$22,000,000 ,'
-S12 ~1Q !!Bi;! -a!,§ QQl;i~5Q ~12~ QQQ QQQ ~~,~ QQQ QQQ -:i22 QQQ QQQ
grams $263,531,578 $292,664,655 $309,113,304 $354,200,000 14.6o/o $371,753,000 $388,610,000 4.5%
$234,807 $355,819 51.5o/c $185,855 -47.8o/c $192,000 $204,100 $204,100 O.Oo/c
$755,517 $901,712 $923,869 $1,082,000 $1,121,000 $1,160,000
CREDITS $264 521 903 $3Q6 333 Q69 $336 228 478 $379 474 QQO $397 Q7{l 100 $411 914 mo
-$12,410,882 -$26,005,450 -$24,000,000 -$24,000,000 -$22,000,000
REDITS $264 521 903 $293 922 187 $310 223 028 $355 474 000 $373 078 100 $389 974100
$60,047,457 9.2o/c $64,214,342 6.9% $75,794,844 18.0o/c $82,042,000 8.2o/c $86,628,000 5.6% $89,723,000 3.6o/c
$62,267,322 -1.9o/c $62,865,504 1.0o/c $66,731,895 6.2o/c $38, 153,000 -42.Bo/c $19,367,000 -49.2o/c $19,573,500 1.1o/c
$72,166,482 4.6o/c $75,359,976 4.4o/c $103,045,619 36.7o/c $104,646,000 1.6o/c $105,559,000 0.9o/c $106,341,000 0.7o/c
$41,838,536 4.9o/c $42,707,046 2.1o/c $43,944,413 2.9o/c $42,930,000 -2.3°/i $43,588,000 1.5o/c $44,091,000 1.2o/c
$11,620,286 12.3o/c $11,458,040 -1.4o/c $13,131,919 14.6o/c $14,488,000 10.3°/i $15,086,000 4.1o/c $15,671,000 3.9o/c
$5,000,000 0.0% $5,000,000 O.Oo/c $5,000,000 O.Oo/c $5,000,000 0.0% $5,000,000 O.Oo/c $5,000,000 O.Oo/c
$2,814 -4.3o/c $1,850 -34.3o/c $243 -86.9o/c $300 23.4o/c $0 $0
$2,788,166 -7.0% $3,129,940 12.3% $2,786,429 $2,772,000 -0.5% $2,789,000 0.6% $2,803,000
$2 851 648 15Q 0 ,, $3 029 320 553 6 2°, $3 495,063 854 $3,716 094 600 $3 846 j 96 200 $3 996 922 600
16] !Q -$76,227,000 -$88, 763,000 -$93,023,000
REDITS $3 029 32Q 553 $3 495 Q63 854 $3 639 867 sgo $3 757 433 200
$0 -$4,370,815 ~$3,908,259 -$11;720,926 -$10,000,000

Tax Credits [TC-2] $0 -$20,461,554 ,$36,476,946 .~$31,087,500 ~$44,600,000
·edits [TC-4] $0 $0 -$355,000 · -$2,000,000 -$2,000,000
dils [TC-3] -$12,410,882 -$26,005,450 -$24,000,000 0$24,000,000 ,$22,000,000
!dlts [TC-5] $0 -$4;401,540 ,$6, 098,460 ~$26,050,000, -$6,655,000
:5 !Q !Q C$69,0QQ -$138,000 .-$207 000
cszo 906 !:!65
568 9 0 835
3ENERAL FUND REVENUES· ECONOMIC FORUM MAY 1, 2017, FORECAST (UPDATED 11/9/2017)
I ECONOMIC FORUM MAY 1, 2017, FORECAST ]
FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019
FY 2014 % FY 2015 % FY 201 6 % FORECAST % FORECAST % FORECAST %
ACTUAL Change ACTUAL Change ACTUAL Change Change Change Change
$17,925,429 7.8o/c $18,347,454 2.40;. $19,913,616 8.5o/c $19,316,000 -3.0o/c $19,703,000 2.0o/c $20,097,000 2.0o/c
$371,684 -1.8o/c $371,099 -0.2o/c $367,116 -1.1o/c $365,000 -0.6o/c $363,500 -0.4o/c $362,200 -0.4o/c
$1,714,724 1.7% $1,740,910 1.5% $1,915,810 10.0% $1,751,000 -8.6% $1,761,000 0.6% $1,774,000 0.7%
$544,060 -4.8o/c $516,832 -5.0o/c $514,489 -0.5o/c $538,100 4.6% $543,300 1.0o/c $548,500 1.0o/c
$66,661,943 2.5o/c $68,833,079 3.3% $73,701,665 7.1o/c $74,469,000 1.0o/c $75,120,000 0.9o/c $75,751,000
$3,525 -50.2o/c $1,550 -56.0o/c $525 -66.1o/c $3,300 528.6% $800 -75.8o/c $800
$51,621 17.4% $36,437 -29.4o/c $28,790 -21.0o/c $22,700 -21.2o/c $19,300 -15.0o/c $16,400
$25,947,110 $27,029,365 $27,978,707 $27,923,000 §27,923,000 §28, 136,000
$9~ 922 ea, $98 Hi!l 113 §jQ4 j39 985 $jQ41Q"Z JQO $105 36Z4QO il,jQ622fHQO
$284,569 $255,613 $236,690 $212,600 $212,600 $210,900
$11,400 $11,000 $14,800 $14,500 $13,200 $13,200
$174,376 1.8o/c $175,202 0.5% $170,348 -2.8o/c $169,300 -0.6o/c $168,400 -0.5o/c $167,400 -0.6o/c
$1,325,805 0.1o/c $1,291,308 -2.6o/c $1,316,607 2.0°;. $1,287,000 -2.2o/c $1,274,000 -1.0o/c $1,277,000 0.2o/c
$723,272 -40.2o/c $505,360 -30.1o/c $349,206 -30.9% $988,500 183.1% $450,000 -54.5% $450,000 O.Oo/c
$1,500 $1,500 $1,500 $1,500
$7,840 -10.8o/c $6,030 -23.1% $5,700 -5.5o/c $6,900 21.1% $5,900 -14.5% $5,900 O.Oo/c
$167,495 27.5% $157,592 -5.9o/c $28,530 -81.9o/c $25,900 ·9.2o/c $27,200 5.0o/c $27,200 O.Oo/c
$590 -78.5o/c $210 -64.4o/c $2,010 857.1% $6,700 233.3% $0 $0
$15,700 -12.Bo/c $15,700 0.0% $8,550 -45.5o/c $4,100 -52.0o/c $4,100 O.Oo/c $4,100 O.Oo/c
$174,117 1.7o/c $174,117 O.Oo/c $387,294 122.4°1< $398,400 2.9% $335,400 -15.8% $323,200 -3.6o/c
$86,475 7.9% $95,675 10.6% $93,450 -2.3°1< $85,400 ·8.6o/c $88,200 3.3% $88,200 O.Oo/c
$36,835 -64.6o/c $25,455 -30.9o/c $65,595 157.7°1< $86,600 32.0o/c $63,700 -26.4% $63,700 O.Oo/c
$60,150 18.8% $46,960 §53,860 §60,000 11.4% §61,000 §61,500 0.8%
~ -3 0 ~ ~ ~ 50 $585 500 ~ . oo,
$46,151,238 0.9% $48,754,438 $51,914,285 $53,887,000 3.8% $55,584,000 3.1% $56,964,000 2.5%
$234,245 8.5o/c $213,145 -9.0o/c $468,376 $123,700 -73.6% $123,700 O.Oo/c $123,700 0.0%
$65,000 $65,000
$3,467,000 $3,467,000 0.0%
$216,785 12.2% $186,560 -13.9o/c 7.9o/c $217,400 8.0o/c $228,200 5.0o/c $232,700 2.0o/c
$1,706,387 -38.3o/c $1,755,460 2.9% -20.2% $1,076,000 -23.1% $911,100 -15.3o/c $857,300 -5.9%
$3,125,839 -72.0% §9,564,851 $1,650,000 $1,867,256 13.2% $1,867,256 0.0%
$54 207 150 • 9 •o 62 968 063 $60 074 400 $64 725 656 00 $66 046 656 o•
~
J
FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019
FY 2014 % FY 2015 % FY 2016 % % % FORECAST %
FORECAST FORECAST
PROP
') $20,670 $20,670 $20,670 $20,670

$23,744 $23,744 $23,744 $23,744
$2,998 $2,998 $2,998 $2,998
$6,874 $6,874 $6,874 $6,874
$1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000
n, Phase I $62,542 $62,542 $62,542 $62,542
omputer Faclllty $9,107 $9,107 $9,107 $9,107
1ications System [1-18] $0
$62,500 $125,000 $125,000 $125,000
997 Legislature $202,987 $202,988 ,$Q ,$Q
~ ~ ~ ~
$589,930 $2,700,000
$4,156 $36,400
~ $2 Z;Jf:l 40Q
$986 508 $2 988 335
$300,000 0.0% $300,000 0.0% $300,000 0.0% $300,000 0.0% $300,000 0.0% $300,000 0.0%
16] $28,761,000
$7,486,068 4.1% $8,383,408 12.0% $8,778,021 4.7% $8,781,000 0.0% $8,828,000 0.5% $9,134,000 3.5%
$298,822 -2.1% $318,681 6.6% $347,803 9.1% $341,800 -1.7% $258,900 -24.3% $259,400 0.2%
$2,511,100 -39.0% $2,428,655 -3.3°1< $0 -100.0% $0 $1,328,228 $1,080,780 -18.6%
$2,335,123 -7.0% $2,135,726 -8.5°1< $2,012,172 -5.8% $2,109,000 4.8% $2,113,000 0.2% $2,118,000 0.2%
$92,200 143.0% $12,384 -86.6% $35,975 190.5% $21,000 -41.6% $40,000 90.5°1< $12,500 -68.8%
$2,535 -2.7% $2,140 -15.6°1< $2,190 2.3% $2,200 0.5% $2,200 0.0% $2,200 0.0%
$3,480 -59.6% $6,120 75.9% $11,495 87.8% $17,200 49.6% $23,000 33.7% $17,200 -25.2%
$46,603 74.0% $97,446 109.1°1< $17,668 -81.9% $5,100 -71.1% $130,100 2451.0% $5,100 -96.1%
$3,447 -26.9% $3,990 15.8% $850 -78.7% $8,000 840.8% $6,000 -25.0% $6,000 0.0%
$416,576 6.6% $423,928 1.8% $371,455 -12.4% $400,000 7.7% $400,000 0.0% $400,000 0.0%
$30,729 -66.1% $113,081 268.0% $31,709 -72.0% $1,500,000 4630.5% $75,000 -95.0% $75,000 0.0%
:ji8,883,972 :ji8,486,081 $10,572,088 $9,908,000 $9,839,249 §10,457 ,016
$22110653 $51 122 638 $22 181 42Z $23 093 300 $23 Of~ 6ZZ $23 56Z 196
$17,466,436 $24,301,834 $38,960,791 §27,919,000 $28,119,000 $28,389,000
$39 8.ZZ Q8!l :E5 ZZ4 4Z2 $611142 216 $51312 ;JOO - $51462 6ZZ $52256196
tEDITS $3 Q66 946 36Q $3 296 893 58.1 $3 Z49 082 146 $3 !;l6Q §34 §35 $4 Q99 268 8.96 $4 251i Oj 3 3Q3
,$Q -§76,227,000 -$88,763,000 -$93,023,000
0
(CE TAX CBEDITS $3 296 8.93 581 $3 Z49 082 146 $3 884 30Z 635 $1.orn 505 896 $4 161 !l90 3Q3
;11 $0.00 0$4,370,815 -$3,908,259 -$11,720,926 -$10,000,000

,BLE TAX CREDITS [TC-2] $0 -$20,461,554 -$36,475,946 , -$31,087,500 ~$44,600,000
"AX CREDITS [TC-4] $0 $0 -$355,000 · -$2,000,000 0 $2,000,000
\.EDITS [TC-3] -$12,410,882 -$26,005,450 -$24,000,000 424,000,000 -$22,000,000

pREDITS [TC-5] $0 -$4,401,540 -$6,098,460 -$26,050,000 -$6,655,000
fC;S] ,$Q ,$Q -$69,000 -$138,000 -$207,000
DITS 30669 6360

~
I ECONOMIC FORUM MAY 1, 2017, FORECAST ]
FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019
FY 2014 % FY 2015 % FY 2016 % FORECAST % FORECAST % FORECAST %
-
,ved during the 28th Special Session In September 2014.
of the home office credit that may be taken against the Insurance Premium Tax to an annual limit of $5 million, effective January 1, 2016. The home office credit Is eliminated pursuant to this bill,
.lions approved during the 2015 Legislative Session.

:approved In S.B. 475 (2013)) by one year to June 30, 2016, on the Net Proceeds of Minerals (NPM) tax, which continues the payment of taxes In the current fiscal year based on the estimated net
true-up against actual net proceeds for the calendar year In the next fiscal year. The one-year extension of the sunset is estimated to yield $34,642,000 in FY 2016. There is no estimated tax payment
1 prepayment of NPM taxes.
:approved In S.B. 475 (2013)) by one year to June 30, 2016, that eliminates health and industrial Insurance deductions allowed against gross proceeds to determine net proceeds for the purpose of
M) tax liability. These deduction changes are effective for the NPM tax payments due In FY 2016. The health and industrial Insurance deduction changes are estimated to generate $4,221,000 in
,cal School Support Tax (LSST) permanent. The 0.35% Increase generates additional revenue from the 0.75% General Fund Commission assessed against LSST proceeds before distribution to school
, generate $1,387,300 In FY 2016 and $1,463,400 In FY 2017.
1e tax base and tax rate for the Live Entertainment Tax (LET) In NRS Chapter 368A that Is administered by the Gaming Control Board for live entertainment at licensed gaming establishments and the
t provided at non-gaming establishments. Under existing law, the tax rate Is 10% of the admission charge and amounts paid for food, refreshments, and merchandise, if the live entertainment Is provided
s than 7,500 persons, and 5% of the admission charge only, if the live entertainment is provided at a facility with a maximum occupancy equal to or greater than 7,500 persons. S.B. 266 removes the
l 9% tax rate on the admission charge to the facility only. The tax rate does not apply to amounts paid for food, refreshments, and merchandise unless that Is the consideration required to enter the
Ids the total amount of consideration paid for escorts and escort services to the LET tax base and makes these activities subject to the 9% tax rate. The bill provides that the exemption from the LET for
ding on the number of tickets sold and the type of Jive entertainment being provided. S.B. 266 establishes an exemption for the following: 1.) the value of certain admissions provided on a complimentary
, or lounge or for food, beverages, and merchandise that are In addition to the admission charge to the facility; and 3.) certain license and rental fees of luxury suites, boxes, or similar products at a
,an 7,500 persons. The provisions of S.B. 266 also make other changes to the types of activities that are Included or excluded from the tax base as live entertainment events subject to the 9% tax rate.
ber 1, 2015. The amounts shown reflect the estimated net change from the provisions of S. B. 266 on the amount of the LET collected from the portion administered by the Gaming Control Board and the
,mblned Impact. The changes to the LET are estimated to reduce LET-Gaming collections by $19,165,000 In FY 2016 and by $26,551,000 In FY 2017, but Increase LET-Nongaming collections by
FY 2017. The combined net effect on total LET collections Is estimated to be a reduction of $3,682,000 In FY 2016 and $1,238,000 in FY 2017.
1n annual tax on each business entity engaged In business In the state whose Nevada gross revenue In a fiscal year exceeds $4,000,000 at a tax rate based on the Industry In which the business Is
eon or before the 45th day immediately following the fiscal year taxable period (June 30th). Although the Commerce Tax collections are received after the June 3Dth end of the fiscal year tax period, the
:rued back and accounted for in that fiscal year, since that fiscal year Is not officially closed until the third Friday in September. The Commerce Tax provisions are effective July 1, 2015, for the purpose
ness, but the first tax payment will not be made until August 14, 2016, for the FY 2016 annual taxable business activity period.
:ax by the Nevada Transportation Authority or the Taxicab Authority, as applicable, on the connection of a passenger to a driver affiliated with a transportation network company, a common motor carrier
, fare charged to the passenger. The excise tax becomes effective on passage and approval (May 29, 2015) for transportation network companies and August 28, 2015, for common motor carrier and
1x proceeds from each biennium are required to be deposited in the Slate Highway Fund and the estimate for FY 2016 reflects this requirement.
of 20 by $1.00 from 80 cents per pack (10 cents to Local Government Distribution Fund, 70 cents to State General Fund) to $1.80 per pack (10 cents to Local Government Distribution Fund, $1.70 to
The $1.00 per pack increase is estimated to generate $96,872,000 In FY 2016 and $95,391,000 in FY 2017.
3nd tax rate for the Modified Business Tax on General Business (nonfinanclal Institutions) by exempting quarterly taxable wages (gross wages Jess allowable health care expenses) paid by an employer
r quarter and taxable wages exceeding $50,000 per quarter are taxed at 1.475%. The taxable wages exemption threshold was $85,000 per quarter for FY 2014 and FY 2015 with a 1.17% tax rate on
based on S.B. 475 (2013). These provisions In S.B. 475 were scheduled to sunset effective June 30, 2015, at which time the tax rate would have been 0.63% on all taxable wages per quarter. The
15. The estimated net Increase in MBT-NFI tax collections from the 1.475% tax rate on quarterly taxable wages exceeding $50,000 compared to the Economic Forum May 1, 2015, forecast, based on
ges before accounting for the estimated impact of any other legislatively approved changes to the MBT-NFI, Is $268,041,000 for FY 2016 and $281,443,000 for FY 2017.
ployee leasing company to be the employer of the employees it leases for the purposes of NRS Chapter 612 (unemployment compensation). Under these provisions, the wages of employees leased
ompanJes will no longer be reported on an aggregated basis under the employee leasing company. The wages of the employees will now be reported on a disaggregated basis under each client
Kemptlon applying to the employee leasing company, ii wilt now apply to each client company. These provisions are effective October 1, 2015. The wages paid to employees being reported on a
versus an aggregated basis for the employee leasing company is estimated to reduce MBT-NFI collections by $2,758,000 in FY 2016 and $3,861,000 in FY 2017.
let Proceeds of Minerals (NPM) tax in NRS Chapter 362 to pay a 2.0% tax on all quarterly taxable wages paid by the employer to the employees, which is Identical to the Modified Business Tax (MBT)
,ter 363A. These provisions are effective July 1, 2015. This change Is estimated to reduce MBT-NFI tax collections by $10,884,000 in both FY 2016 and FY 2017. The mining companies paying the 2%
, generate $17,353,000 in both FY 2016 and FY 2017 for the MBT-Mlnlng. This change Is estimated to yield a net increase in General Fund revenue of $6,469,000 in both FY 2016 and FY 2017.
clal Institution" In NRS Chapter 363A any person who is primarily engaged In the sale, solicitation, or negotiation of Insurance, which makes such a person subject to the Modified Business Tax on
l NRS Chapter 363B at 1.475% on quarterly taxable wages exceeding $50,000 and not the 2.0% tax on all quarterly taxable wages. These provisions are effective July 1, 2015. MBT-FI Is estimated to
3,000 in FY 2017, and the MBT-NFI Is estimated to be Increased by $278,000 in FY 2016 and $291,000 In FY 2017. The net decrease In General Fund revenue is estimated to be $613,000 In FY 2016
n1c FORUM'S FORECAST FOR FY 2017, FY 2018, AND FY 2019 APPROVED AT THE MAY 1, 2017, MEETING
~
I
FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019
FY 2014 % FY 2015 % FY 2016 % FORECAST % FORECAST % FORECAST %
.
ess's Modified Business Tax (MBT) due during the current fiscal year not to exceed 50% of the Commerce Tax paid by the business for the preceding fiscal year. The credit can be taken against any or
1 current
fiscal year, but any amount of credit not used cannot be carried forward and used in succeeding fiscal years. The total estimated Commerce Tax credits against the MBT are estimated to be
redlt amount was not allocated separately to the MBT-NFI, MBT-FI, and MST-Mining.
1 the portion of the Governmental Services Tax (GST) generated from the 10% depreciation schedule change, approved in S. B. 429 (2009), to be allocated to the State General Fund in FY 2016.
:ated to the State General Fund and 50% to the State Highway Fund. Under S.B. 483, 100% of the additional revenue generated from the GST 10% depreciation schedule change Is required to be
ng In FY 2018 and going forward permanently.
.iness License Fee (BLF), from $100 to $200, permanent for the Initial and annual renewal that was scheduled to sunset on June 30, 2015, (as approved In A.B. 475 (2013)) for all types of businesses,
,I renewal fee for corporations, as specified in S.B. 483, Is Increased from $200 to $500 permanently. These provisions are effective July 1, 2015. The changes to the BLF are estimated to generate
000 In FY 2016 and $64,338,000 In FY 2017 in relation ot the Economic Forum May 1, 2015, forecast with all business types paying a $100 annual fee.
Ing the Initial and annual list of directors and officers by $25 that is required to be paid by each business entity organizing under the various chapters in Title 7 of the NRS, effective July 1, 2015. The $25
is estimated to increase Commercial Recordings Fee revenue by $2,751,000 in FY 2016 and $2,807,000 In FY 2017.
12 months and the renewal period from 48 to 24 months for a license as a real estate broker, broker-salesperson, or salesperson and also changes the period for other licenses from 48 to 24 months,
id before July 1, 2015, do not need to be renewed until the expiration date required under statute prior to July 1, 2015. This change In the licensing period ls estimated to reduce Real Estate License Fee
14,200 in FY 2017.
ion the gross receipts from admission charges to unarmed combat events, that is dedicated to the State General Fund, by 2% to 8% with 75% of the proceeds from the 8% fee deposited in the State
:le Commission to fund the agency's operations. A.B. 476 repeals the two-tiered fee based on the revenues from the sale or lease of broadcast, television and motion picture rights that is dedicated to the
11oter of an unarmed combat event a credit against the 8% license fee equal to the amount paid to the Athletic Commission or organization sanctioned by the Commission to administer a drug testing
,visions are effective June 9, 2015, based on the passage and approval effective date provisions of AB. 476. These changes are estimated to reduce Athletic Commission Fee revenue by $600,000 in
plication or renewals paid by developers for exemptions to any provisions administered by the Real Estate Division of the Department of Business and Industry, and requires that all fees collected for this
11, 2015. This requirement for the Division to keep these fees Is estimated to reduce Real Estate Land Company filing fees by approximately $152,600 In FY 2016 and $153,300 in FY 2017.
1e commission retained by the Department of Motor Vehicles from the amount of Governmental Services Tax (GST) collected and any penalties for delinquent payment of the GST to be transferred to
. 491 specified that the amount transferred shall not exceed $20,813,716 from commissions and $4,097,964 from penalties in FY 2015. A.B. 490 amended the commissions amount to $23,724,000 and
ults in an estimated net increase in General Fund revenue of $3,849,320 in FY 2015 from GST Commissions and Penalties.
·om Court Administrative Assessment Fees to be deposited In the State General Fund (pursuant to subsection 9 of NRS 176.059), based on the legislatively approved projections and the authorized
ment Fee revenues (pursuant to subsection 8 of NRS 176.059) for FY 2016 and FY 2017.
ved during the 2015 Legislative Session.
::nterprise Information Technology Services of the Department of Administration to use revenues from intergovernmental transfers to the State General Fund for the repayment of special appropriations
ment of the state's microwave communications system. The legislatively approved repayment from the Division lo the State General Fund is $57,900 per year between FY 2018 and FY 2021, with
FY 2028.
ans approved during the 2017 Legislative Session.
he portion of the Governmental Services Tax (GST) generated from the 10% depreciation schedule change, approved In S.B. 429 (2009), to be allocated to the State General Fund in FY 2018 and
1 the State Highway Fund. Under A.B. 486, 100% of the additional revenue generated from the GST 10% depreciation schedule change is required to be deposited In the State Highway Fund beginning
:stimated to generate $19,367,000 In FY 2018 and $19,573,500 in FY 2019.
taln permits relating to the usage of piers, docks, buoys, or other facilities on navigable bodies of water in this state from NRS 322.120, and instead requires that the State Land Registrar of the Division
ition and Natural Resources establish these fees by regulation, effective July 1, 2017. The bill requires that the first $65,000 of the proceeds from these permit fees be deposited In the State General
, excess of $65,000 to be used by the State Land Registrar to carry out programs to preserve, protect, restore, and enhance the natural environment of the Lake Tahoe Basin.
s from the navigable water permit fees permitted pursuant to NRS 322.120 were recorded as Miscellaneous Fee revenue. Beginning In FY 2018, the proceeds from these fees are accounted for
,s, resulting in a corresponding reduction to the forecast for Miscellaneous Fees of $65,000 per fiscal year in FY 2018 and FY 2019.
,y the State Engineer of the Division of Water Resources of the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources relating to services for the adjudication and appropriation of water be deposited in the
3,467,000 per year In FY 2018 and FY 2019.
ed by the Securities Division of the Secretary of State's Office be deposited In the State General Fund, Instead of the Secretary of State's Office's operating budget, effective July 1, 2017. Estimated to
and FY 2019.
om Court Administrative Assessment Fees to be deposited in the State General Fund (pursuant to subsection 9 of NRS 176.059), based on the legislatively approved projections and the authorized
men! Fee revenues (pursuant to subsection 8 of NRS 176.059) for FY 2018 and FY 2019. Estimated to generate $1,328,228 in FY 2018 and $1,080,780 In FY 2019.
,mount included In the Legislature Approves budget after the May 1, 2017, approval of the General Fund revenue forecast by the Economic Forum.
GENERAL FUND REVENUES· ECONOMIC FORUM MAY 1, 2017, FORECAST (UPDATED 11/9/2017)
~
I
FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019
FY 2014 % FY 2015 % FY 2016 % % % FORECAST %
FORECAST FORECAST
.
,LATURE
Office of Economic Development (GOED) could issue up to $20 million per fiscal year for a total of $80 million for the four-year pilot program In transferrable tax credits that may be used against the
rax, and Gaming Percentage Fee Tax. The provisions of the film tax credit program were amended in S.B. 1 (28th Special Session (2014)) to reduce the total amount of the tax credits that may be
The amounts shown reflect estimates based on Information provided by GOED during the 2017 Session on the amount of tax credits that have been or will be approved for use in FY 2017 and FY 2018.
Illian per year In film tax credits may be awarded by GOED beginning In FY 2018, In addition to any remaining amounts from S.B. 1 of the 28th Special Session (2014). Any portion of the $10 million per
y be carried forward and made available during the next or any future fiscal year.
14)), for certain qualifying projects, the Governor's Office of Economic Development (GOED) Is required to Issue transferrable tax credits that may be used against the Modified Business Tax, Insurance
ee Tax. The amount of transferrable tax credits are equal to $12,500 for each qualified employee employed by the participants In the project, to a maximum of 6,000 employees, plus 5 percent of the first
,te made collectively by the participants In the qualifying project, plus an additional 2.8 percent of the next $2.5 billion in new capital Investment in the State made collectively by the participants in the
30ED may not exceed $45 million per fiscal year (though any unissued credits may be Issued in subsequent fiscal years), and GOED may not issue total credits in excess of $195 million. The forecast Is
( 2018, and $44,600,000 for FY 2019 based on Information provided by GOED to the Economic Forum for consideration at their May 1, 2017, meeting.
15)), for certain qualifying projects, the Governor's Office of Economic Development (GOED) Is required to Issue lransferrable tax credits that may be used against the Modified Business Tax, Insurance
ee Tax. The amount of lransferrable tax credits are equal lo $9,500 for each qualified employee employed by the participants in the project, to a maximum of 4,000 employees. The amount of credits
lion per fiscal year (though any unissued credits may be Issued in subsequent fiscal years), and GOED may not issue total credits In excess of $38 million. The forecast for tax credits attributable to the
!019 based on information provided by GOED to the Economic Forum for consideration at their May 1, 2017, meeting.
II Markets Jobs Act allows Insurance companies to receive a credit against the tax Imposed on insurance premiums In exchange for making qualified equity investments In community development
nlnority-owned. A total of $200 million In qualified equity investments may be certified by the Department of Business and Industry. In exchange for making the qualified equity Investment, Insurance
iinsl the Insurance Premium Tax in an amount equal to 58 percent of the total qualified equity Investment that Is certified by the Department. The credits may be taken In Increments beginning on the
lment, as follows:
:ent of the qualified investment
:ent of the qualified Investment
:ent of the qualified Investment
ce companies were allowed to begin taking tax credits in the third quarter of FY 2015. The amounts shown reflect estimates of the amount of tax credits that will be taken In each fiscal year based on
1siness and Industry and the Department of Taxation during the 2015 Session.
~ice of Economic Development (GOED) to approve transferrable tax credits that may be used against the Modified Business Tax, Insurance Premium Tax, and Gaming Percentage Fee Tax to new or
nlc development of Nevada. As approved In S.B. 507, the total amount oflransferrable lax credits that may be Issued Is $500,000 In FY 2016, $2,000,000 in FY 2017, and $5,000,000 for FY 2018 and
,wn are the estimate based on the maximum amount that can be Issued In each fiscal year.
luced the total amount of transferrable tax credits that may be Issued by GOED to zero in FY 2016, $1 million in FY 2017, $2 million per year in FY 2018 and FY 2019, and $3 million in FY 2020. For
if credits that may be issued by GOED remains al $5 million per year.
:lonatlons of money to certain scholarship organizations to receive a dollar-for-dollar credit against the taxpayer's liability for the Modified Business Tax (MBT). The total amount of credits that may be
partmenl) is $5 million In FY 2016, $5.5 million In FY 2017, and 110 percent of the total amount of credits authorized in the previous year, for all subsequent fiscal years. The amounts shown reflect the
lal amount authorized for each fiscal year will be donated to a qualified scholarship organization and taken as credits against the MBT.
million In credits against the MBT under this program In Fiscal Year 2018 beyond those that were authorized in FY 2018 based on the provisions of A.B. 165 (2015). Any amount of the $20 million In
11 may be Issued in future fiscal years.
the Modified Business Tax (MBT) lo certain employers who match the contribution of an employee to one of the college savings plans offered through the Nevada Higher Education Prepaid Tuition
ogram authorized under existing law. The amount of the tax credit is equal lo 25 percent of the matching contribution, not to exceed $500 per contributing employee per year, and any unused credits
isions relating to the Nevada College Savings Program are effective January 1, 2016, and the Higher Education Prepaid Tuition Program are effective July 1, 2016. The amounts shown are estimates
rer's Office on enrollment and contributions for the college savings plans.
EXHIBIT F
GENERAL FUND REVENUES - ECONOMIC FORUM MAY 1, 2019, FORECAST
~ FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021

FY 2017 % FY 2018 % % % %
FY 2016 % FORECAST FORECAST FORECAST
Change ACTUAL Change Change Change Change
ACTUAL Change ACTUAL
$25,260, 140 -27.2% $63,522,196 151.5% $51,462,000 -19.0% ~53,373,000 3.7% $52,950,000 -0.8%
$34,674,918 -33.0%
$3.636 $1 $17,200 $Q $Q
$68,648
$34 743 566 - 8• $25 263 776 $63 522 196 $51479200 - $53 373 000 $52 950 000 -o 8°
$1,090,695,356 5.2% $1,142,799,766 4.8% $1,232,208,000 7.8% $1,294,510,000 5.1% $1,334,223,000 3.1%
$1,036,549,227 4.2%
$10,605,173 4.4% $11,091,996 4.6% $11,960,000 7.8% $12,565,000 5.1% $12,950,000 3.1%
$10,155,240 4.4%
$4,730,822 5.0% $4,996,610 5.6% $5,388,000 7.8% $5,663,000 5.1% $5,837,000 3.1%
$4,506,053 4.0%
$16,550,744 5.0% $17,481,048 5.6% $18,849,000 7.8% $19,802,000 5.1% $20,409,000 3.1%
$15,764,607 3.9%
11.0% $12,857,082 15.5% $13,863,000 7.8% $14.564,000 5.1% $15,011.000 3.1%
$10,028,644 6.0% $11.133,048
90 $1 282 268 000 8' $1 347 104 000 5 0 $1 388 430 000
$1 077 003 772 $1133 715143 $1 189 226 502
$730,496,482 4.2% $757,790,502 3.7% $763,360,000 0.7% $781.256,000 2.3% $792,106,000 1.4%
:redits $700,773,974 1.1%
-$5,222,720 $0 $0 $0 $0
-$4,288,194
-$36,850,519 -$73,831 ;822 $0 $0 $0
;Tax Credits [TC-2] -$20.461.554
$Q .-$355,000 $Q $Q $Q
:edits [TC-4] $Q
-$42 073 239 -$74 186 822 $0 $0 $Q
-$24 749 748
$688,423,243 1.8% $683,603,680 $763,360,000 11.7% $781,256,000 2.3% $792,106,000 1.4%
idits $676,024,226 -2.5%
$3,405 $3,200 -6.0% $3,200. 0.0% $3,300 3.1% $3,400 3.0%
$3,261 10.0% 4.4%
$9,935 6.9% $8,723 -12.2% $7,500 -14.0% $7,500 0.0% $7,600 1.3%
$9,293 24.6%
$0 $0 $500 $0 $0
$700
$415,429 -80.7% $22,250,000 $750,000 -96.6% $750,000 0.0%
$4,069,112 1105.5% $2,151,524 -47.1%
$8,172,087 -0.7% $8,270,489 1.2% $8,367,000 1.2% $8,525,000 1.9% $8,590,000 0.8%
$8,225,963 -0.8%
-2.0% $10,496,064 -1.4% $10,411,000 -0.8% $10,332,000 -0.8% $10,344,000 0.1%
$10,861,213 -2.7% $10,641,146
$6,443,060 -0.1% $6,390,520 -0.8% $6,266,000 -1.9% $6,157,000 -1.7% $6,214,000 0.9%
$6,450,491 -1.1%
$1,042,709 -41.4% $1,000,375 -4.1% $1,436,000 43.5% $1,200,000 -16.4% $1,444,500 20.4%
$1,780,785 2.7%
$33,500 -1.5% $32,000 -4.5% $32,500 1.6% $33,000 1.5% $33,500 1.5%
$34,000 -2.9%
$36,000 -14.3% $36,000 0.0% $30,000 -16.7% $30,000 0.0% $30,000 0.0%
$42,000 0.0%
$500,000 0.0% $500,000 0.0% $500,000 0.0% $500,000 0.0% $500,000 0.0%
$500,000 0.0%
$55,000 -12.7% $56,000 1.8% $54,000 -3.6% $55,000 1.9% $56,000 1.8%
$63,000 3.3%
$100,000 0.0% $100,000 0.0% $100,000 0.0% $100,000 (}.0%
$175,000 -12.5% $100,000 -42.9%
$291,520 6.0% $290,000 -0.5% $287,500 -0.9% $288,500 0.3%
$279,500 -0.5% $275,000 -1.6%
$12,084 -66.8% $4,439 -63.3% $4,000 -9.9% $3,900 -2.5% $3,900
$36,391 28.1%
$121.244 $119,782 $110,600 $111,400 $110.600
$115,214
$760 093175 $785 51fi 041 $813 222 300 $809 351 600 $820 582 000
!EDITS !H33 419 897
-$42.073.239 -:F4, 186,822 $Q $Q $Q
-$24,749,748
$718 019 936 $711 328 219 $813 222 300 $809 351 600 $820 582 000
DITS $708670149
$102,328,255 $100,863,918 $102,521,000 $103,555,000 $104,192,000

$111.994,620
$26,977.758 $24,544.887 $25,212.000 $25,739.000 $26,248,000
$16,536,346
$129 306 013 $125 408 805 $127733 000 $129 294 000 $130 440 000
$128 530 966
$197,827,208 37.9% $201,926,513 2.1% $215,284,000 6.6% $222,470,000 3.3% $231,527,000 4.1%
$143,507,593
TAX -3.1% $37,051,000 26.5%

$11,898,532 $23,101,058 94.2% $21,773,229 -5.7% $30,221,000 38.8% $29,284,000
18.1% $160,664,759 -11.1% $162.407,000 1.1% $156,650,000 -3.5% $151,826,000 -3.1%

$153,033,176 65.0% $180,677,113
UC FORUM'S FORECAST FOR FY 2019, FY 2020, AND FY 2021 APPROVED AT THE MAY 1, 2019, MEETING
~ FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021

% FY 2017 % FY 2018 % % % FORECAST %
FY 2016 FORECAST FORECAST
Change ACTUAL Change ACTUAL Change Change Change Change
ACTUAL
:D
HE!). [9-16)[10-16]
33.4% $573,574,680 10.9% $604,038,466 5.3% $635,211,000 5.2% $626,502,000 -1.4% $651,033,000 3.9%
$517,135,234
-$43,216,582 -$57, 111,521 1Q 1Q 1Q
1Q
33.4% $530,358,099 2.6% $54§,926,!345 3.1% . $635,211,000 16.1% $626,502,000 -1.4% $651,033,000 3.9%
,clit_s_ $517, 135!234
$0 $0 $0 $0 ' $0
.-$82,621
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Tax Credits [TC-2] . $0
$0 . $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
;edits [fC-4]
-$4,646,956 -$15,925,154 $0 $0 $0
idits [fCs5] -$4,401,540
1Q : 1Q 1Q
,51 1Q 1Q 1Q
-$4 646 llli§ -SJ/i !125154 1Q. 1Q. 1Q.
-$4 464 H:11
- o, $651033000 3 go,
!§ $512 651 OZ3 322% $525 Z11142 2 5°, $531 001 zeo 1 0°o $635 211 000
2-16]
12.6% $27,921,155 2.7% $29,088,764 4.2% $30,049,000 3.3% $29,439,000 -2.0% $30,508,000 3.6%
$27,188,910
-$453,095 -$633,954 1Q 1Q 1Q
1Q
$27,468,060 1.0% $28,454,810 3.6% $30,049,000 5.6% $29,439,000 -2.0% $30,508,000 3.6%
$27,188,910 12.6%
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Tax Credits [TC-2) $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0
edits [fC-4] $0
-$50,000 -$50,000 $0 $0 $0
,dlts [fC-5) $0
1Q 1Q 1Q 1Q 1Q
6] 1Q 1Q. 1Q.
1Q. ~ ~ 1Q.
$2Z 188 910 2 6°0 $22418 060 08°, $28 404 810 36°, $3Q 049 000 s 8°, $29 439 000 -2 0° $30 508 000 3 6°
l[11-16]
$22,149,695 1.0% $22,508,221 1.6% $22,907,000 1.8% $21,813,000 -4.8% $22,067,000 1.2%
$21,938,368
-$45,977 -$71,092 1Q 1Q 1Q
1Q
$22,103,717 0.8% $.2~,437, 129 1.5% $2~,907,00CJ 2.1% $21,813,000 -4.8% . ~?2,0§7,000 1.2%
$21!938,368
$0 $0 $0 $0 •$0
$0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Tax credits [TC-2) $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0
edits [fC-4] $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0
,dits [fC-5] $0
1Q 1Q 1Q 1Q 1Q 1Q
6) .$ll
1Q. 1Q. .1Q. 1Q. 1Q.
$22 103 Z17 $22 43Z 129 $22 9Q7 000 $21813000 $22 067 000
$21938368
$623 645 /;i30 $655 635 451 $688 167 000 $677 754 000 $703 608 QOO
$566 262 513
1Q -$43,715,654 -$57,816,568 -$56,222,000 -$59, 128,000 -$62, 145,000
16]
$566 262 513 $579 929 875 $597 818 883 $631945000 $618 626 000 $641 463 OQO
DITS
.-$82,621 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Tax Credits [TC-2) $0
$0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0
edits [fC.,4]
-$4,696,956 . -$15,975, 154 ·$18,131,350 -$14,641,000 ·$16,105,100
:dits [fC-5] -$4,401,540
1Q 1Q 1Q -$1,000 -$50,000 -$50,000
6)
..
-$4 484161 -$4 696 95§ -$15 975 154 -$18 132 350 "$14 691 000 -$16 155100
2 o, $581843729 o, $613 812 650 $603 935 000 - 6°0 $625 307 900 3 5°,
.MS $561778352 36 $575 232 919
ECONOMIC FORUM MAY 1, 2019, FORECAST
=
:D
:1-16]
FY 2016
ACTUAL
$335,118,754
$0
%
Change
9.8%
FY 2017
ACTUAL
$383,635,486
$0
%
Change
14.5%
FY2018
ACTUAL
$417,497,362
$0
%
Change
8.8%
II FY 2019
FORECAST
$444,340,000
$0
%
Change
6.4%
FY2020
FORECAST
$466,254,000
$0
%
Change
4.9%
FY 2021
FORECAST
$492,665,000
$0
%
Change
5.7%
Tax Credits [TC-2] $0 . $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

redits [TC-4] · $0 $0 $0 . $0 $0 $0
1dlts [TC~3J -$26,005,450 · -$25, 153,081 ·$23,234,613 · -$22,000;000 ·F,195,974 •§!I
-$26 005 ~!iO -$25 j53 O§j -$~323~ 6J3 .· -$2,l 000 000 ".$z 19~ !.!Z~ §!I
grams $309,113,304 5.6% $358,482,405 16.0% $394,262,749 10.0% $422,340,000 7.1% $459,058,026 8.7% $492,665,000 7.3%
$185,855 -47,8% $180,831 -2.7% $170,507 -5.7% $284,400 $183,200 -35.6% $183,200 0.0%
$923,869 $1,077,605 16.6% $1,267,234 17.6% $1,415,000 $1,483,000 4.8% $1,533,000 3.4%
CREDITS $336 228 4ZB $384 893 922 $418 935 Joi $446 039 400 :J;46Z 920 200 :1;494 381 2QO
-$26,005,450 -$25,153,081 -$23,234,613 -$22,000,000 -P,195,974 §!I
REDITS :1;310 223 028 $359 Z40 841 $395 700 489 $424 039 400 :1;460 724 226 $494 381 200
$75,794,844 18.0% $83,957,113 10.8% $103,390,400 23.1% $102,067,000 -1.3% $105,083,000 3.0% $106,357,000 1.2%
$66,731,895 6.2% $38,567,416 -42.2% $20,252,358 -47.5% $21,443,000 5.9% $0 $0
$103,045,619 36.7% $104,858,331 1.8% $109,297,773 4.2% $112,278,000 2.7% $113,000,000 0.6% $113,352,000 0.3%
$43,944,413 2.9% $43,868,496 -0.2% $44,194,634 0.7% $45,526,000 3.0% $45,682,000 0.3% $46,058,000 0.8%
$13,131,919 14.6% $14,693,540 11.9% $16,496,006 12.3% $17,804,000 7.9% $19,135,000 7.5% $20,492,000 7.1%
$5,000,000 0.0% $5,000,000 0.0% $5,000,000 0.0% $5,000,000 0.0% $5,000,000 0.0% $5,000,000 0.0%
$243 $281 15.5% $0 $0 $0 $0
$2,786,429 $2,785,199 $2,745,343 $2,805,000 $2,735,000 $2,722,000
:1;3 495 063 854 $3 752 253 314 $3 923 984113 $4 123 Z43 900 :ll'.\ 183 835 80Q $4 304 776 200
16] §!I -$43, 715,654 -$57,816,568 -$56,222,000 -$59,128,000 -$62, 145,000
REDITS $3 495 063 854 $3 708 537 660 :1;3 866 167 545 $4 Q67 521 900 0
:1;4124 707 800 $4 242 631 200
·$4,370,815 ~$5,222,720 $0 -$3,770,609 -$5,000,000 -$6,000,000

Tax Cre~ils (TC-2] -$20,461,554 -$36,850,519 -$73,831,822 . -$41,943,604 -$21,912,500 $0
edits [fC-4] $0 $0 -$355,000 -$2,227,500 -$3,247,500 -$5,000,000
dils [fC-3] :$26,005,450 -$25,153,081 -$23,234,613 -$22,000,000 -$7,195,974 $0
1dits rrc-5] -$4,401 ;540 -$4,696,956 -$15,975; 154 ·$18,131,350 -$14,641,000 "$16,105,100
:6 §!I §!I §!I -$1,000 -$50,000 ·$50,000
-Sm:! ~96 58l;l
:1;3 752 770 956
=
FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021
FY 2017 FY 2018 % % % %
FY 2016 % % FORECAST FORECAST FORECAST
8.5% $19,533,765 -1.9% $21,002,623 7.5% $21,964,000 4.6% $22,622,000 3.0% $23,263,000 2.8%
$19,913,616
$364,681 -0.7% $342,192 -6.2% $340,100 -0.6% $337,200 -0.9% $335,100 -0.6%
$367,116 -1.1%
$1,838,672 -4.0% $1,942,182 5.6% $2,223,000 14.5% -3.0% $2,177,000 1.0%

$1,915,810 10.0%
-0.5% $548,574 6.6% $556,389 1.4% $550,300 -1.1% 1.1% $563,000 1.1%
$514,489
$74,606,592 1.2% $77,057,113 3.3% $77,225,000 0.2% 0.8% $78,515,000 0.9%
$73,701,665 7.1%
$3,400 547.6% $5,050 48.5% $30,000 494.1% -88.3% $3,500 0.0%
$525 -66.1%
-21.0% $25,927 -9.9% $0 $21,800 0.0% $21,800
$28,790
$28,304,481 1.2% $29,322,672 $29,875,000 $30,801,000
$27,978,707
~105 321 !l4!l $108 8834Q5 $109925100 ~112 Q!l1 300
$104 1;39 985
$212,848 $214,155 $214,000 $215,000
$236,690
$13,600 $15,500 $17,700 $19,500
$14,800
$2,442,000
$1,900
~2 443 900
$4,492,000
$142 849 80Q
$172,297 1.1% $164,198 -4.7% $185,500 13.0% $171,500 -7.5% $168,100 -2.0%
$170,348 -2.8%
$1,287,358 -2.2% $1,249,463 -2.9% $1,260,000 0.8% $1,261,000 0.1% $1,258,000 -0.2%
$1,316,607 2.0%
$1,139,995 226.5% $676,092 -40.7% $600,500 -11.2% $600,500 0.0% $600,500 0.0%
$349,206 -30.9%
$0 $0 $500 $500 0.0% $500 0.0%
$1,500
$6,740 18.2% $7,780 15.4% $6,600 -15.2% $7,000 6.1% $6,800 -2.9%
$5,700 -5.5%
$24,692 -13.5% $24,575 -0.5% $25,300 3.0% $25,000 -1.2% $25,000 0.0%
$28,530 -81.9%
$2,010 857.1% $6,712 233.9% $0
$7,150 -16.4% $12,275 71.7% $9,400 -23.4% $9,500 1.1% $9,500 0.0%
$8,550 -45.5%
$472,141 21.9% $601,757 27.5% $600,200 -0.3% $596,800 -0.6% $596,800 0.0%
$387,294 122.4%
$102,900 10.1% $109,295 6.2% $102,000 -6.7% $105,400 3.3% $105,400 0.0%
$93,450 -2.3%
$95,337 45.3% $102,131 7.1% $101,800 -0.3% $101,800 0.0% $101,800 0.0%
$65,595 157.7%
$57,490 6.7% $60,150 4.6% $60.400 0.4% $61,200 1.3% $61,900 1.1%
$53,860 14.7%
0 • ~ 0 •
~ ~ ~ 8 • ~ ~
$52,467,963 1.1% $55,601,611 6.0% $56,828,000 2.2% $57,392,000 1.0% $58,135,000 1.3%
$51,914,285 6.5°
$116,600 -75.1% $117,035 0.4% $125,200 7.0% $132,300 5.7% $132,300 0.0%
$468,376 119.7%
$61,185 $65,000 6.2% $65,000 0.0% $65,000 0.0%
$3,860,659 $3,721,000 -3.6% $3,621,000 -2.7% $3,620,000 0.0%
0.5% $229.445 13.4% $242,100 5.5% $262,700 8.5% $283,700 8.0%
7.9%
$806,743 -11.4% $632,500 -21.6% $573,300 -9.4% $531,100 -7.4%
$2,764,378
66 8
$2,750,000
$67 316 OOQ
-0.5%
.3°o
$2,450,000
$67 436 500
-10.9% $2.450,000
$68 151 400
0.0%
..
=
PROP
')
FY 2016
ACTUAL
$20,670
$23,744
$2,998
$6,874
%
Change
FY 2017
ACTUAL
$20,670
$23,744
$2,998
$6,874
%
Change
FY2018
ACTUAL
$20,670
$23,744
$0
$0
%
Change
I'
FY 2019
FORECAST %
Change
FY 2020
FORECAST
$20,670
$13,032
$0
$0
%
Change
FY 2021
FORECAST
$20,670
$13,032
$0
$0
%
Change
$1,000 $1,000 $0 $0 $0
n, Phase I $62,542 $62,542 $62,542 $0 $0
omputer Facility $9,107 $9,107 $9,107 $0 $0
1ications System [1-18] $57,900 $57,900 $57,900
Enhancement [2-19] $201,079 $201,079
1de [3-19] $499,724 $499,724
$125,000 $125,000 $125,000 $125,000 $125.000
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
$3,578,939 $9,146,057 $17,588,000

$43,740 .$11lilll $216,600
~3 622 !l:Z9 ~926J rz5 ~j HO!l!lOQ
$38:Z46H 9 560 38 $j8122 005
$300,000 0.0% $300,000 0.0% $300,000 0.0% $300,000 0.0% $300,000 0.0% $300,000 0.0%
$8,778,021 4.7% $8,745,436 -0.4% $9,482,546 8.4% $10,357,000 9.2% $10,736,000 3.7% $11,016,000 2.6%
$347,803 9.1% $377,829 8.6% $497,111 31.6% $392,900 -21.0% $407,900 3.8% $407,900 0.0%
$0 $0 $1,551,956 $1,080,780 -30.4% $0 $0
$2,012,172 -5.8% $2,066,687 2.7% $2,095,971 1.4% $2,117,000 1.0% $2,132,000 0.7% $2,141,000 0.4%
$35,975 190.5% $19,304 -46.3% $35,075 81.7% $36,300 3.5% $50,000 37.7% $40,000 -20.0%
$2,190 2.3% $1,765 -19.4% $1,740 -1.4% $7,500 331.0% $4,000 -46.7% $4,000 0.0%
$11,495 87.8% $4,210 -63.4% $4,895 16.3% $8,300 69.6% $10,300 24.1% $10,700 3.9%
$17,668 -81.9% $3,685 -79.1% $3,400 -7.7% $1,300 -61.8% $2,300 76.9% $2,300 0.0%
$850 -78.7% $9,836 $864 -91.2% $1,400 62.0% $1,200 -14.3% $1,200 0.0%
$371,455 -12.4% $366,872 -1.2% $397,998 8.5% $359,700 -9.6% $363,100 0.9% $366,900 1.0%
$31,709 -72.0% $1,524,081 $51,085 $34,000 -33.4% $34,000 0.0% $34,000 0.0%
$10,572.088 $10,222,088 -3.3% $9.839.249 $10,457.000 $10,299.000 $10,875,000
s22 J8J 421 $23 341192 $23 96j !)88 $24 853180 $24 039 800 S24 899 ooo
$38,960,791 $25.871,335 $26,723.929 $26.354,000 $25.934.000 $25.914,000
$6J 442 218 - ~49 5J3 12z iim 905 8J!l i51 501 J8Q S5o ;m1000 ~51113 000
0
EDITS i3 249 Q!l2 j 46 §3 996145 j39 $4189 924 613 i4 40j ;;Jj 2 3!ll ~4 4!lj ~35 205 ~4 585 880 805
1Q -$43, 715,654 -$57.816,568 -$56,222,000 -$59.128,000 -$62.145,000
CE TAX CREDITS $3 249 082 j46 S3 952 429 484 $4 132 j08 045 S4,345 090 36j $4 402 201 205 $4 523 135 805
,1] -$4,::170,815 ~$5,222,720 $0 -$3;770,609 -$5,000,000 -$6,000,000

BLE TAX CREDITS [TC-2] "$20,461,554 -$36:850,519 -$73,831,822 -$41,943,604 -$21,912,500 $0
'AX CREDITS [TC-4] $0 $0 -$355,000 -$2,227,500 -$3,247,500 -$5,000,000
:EDITS [TC-3] -$26,005,450 ', -$25,153,081 -$23,234,613 -$22,000,000 -$7,195,974 $0
:REDITS [TC-5] -$4,401,540 -$4,696,956 -$15,975, 154 -$18,131,350 -$14,641,000 -$16, 105,100
'C-6] 1Q 1Q 1Q -$1.000, -$50,000 -$50,000
-:rn 9,3 211 -:Ui2 Q4f:l 9:Z~
DITS 350 60 23
~
J
FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021
FY 2016 % FY 2017 % FY 2018 % % % %
FORECAST FORECAST FORECAST
.
ved during the 28th Special Session In September 2014.
of the home office credit that may be taken against the Insurance Premium Tax to an annual limit of $5 million, effective January 1, 2016. The home office credit Is eliminated pursuant to this bill,
!Ions approved during the 2015 Legislative Session.

:approved in S.B. 475 (2013)) by one year to June 30, 2016, on the Net Proceeds of Minerals (NPM) tax, which continues the payment of taxes in the current fiscal year based on the estimated net
true-up against actual net proceeds for the calendar year in the next fiscal year. The one-year extension of the sunset Is estimated to yield $34,642,000 in FY 2016. There is no estimated tax payment
1 prepayment of NPM taxes.
:approved In S.B. 475 (2013)) by one-year to June 30, 2016, that eliminates health and industrial insurance deductions allowed against gross proceeds to determine net proceeds for the purpose of
M) tax liability. These deduction changes are effective for the NPM tax payments due In FY 2016. The health and industrial insurance deduction changes are estimated to generate $4,221,000 in
,cal School Support Tax (LSST) permanent. The 0.35% Increase generates additional revenue from the 0.75% General Fund Commission assessed against LSST proceeds before distribution to school
generate $1,387,300 In FY 2016 and $1,463,400 in FY 2017.
1e tax base and tax rate for the Live Entertainment Tax (LET) in NRS Chapter 368A that is administered by the Gaming Control Board for live entertainment at licensed gaming establishments and the
: provided at non-gaming establishments. Under existing law, the tax rate Is 10% of the admission charge and amounts paid for food, refreshments, and merchandise, if the live entertainment is provided
s than 7,500 persons, and 5% of the admission charge only, if the live entertainment is provided at a facility with a maximum occupancy equal to or greater than 7,500 persons. S.B. 266 removes the
t 9% tax rate on the admission charge to the facility only. The tax rate does not apply to amounts paid for food, refreshments, and merchandise unless that is the consideration required to enter the
Ids the total amount of consideration paid for escorts and escort services to the LET tax base and makes these activities subject to the 9% tax rate. The bill provides that the exemption from the LET for
ding on the number of tickets sold and the type of live entertainment being provided. S.B. 266 establishes an exemption for the following: 1.) the value of certain admissions provided an a complimentary
, or lounge or for food, beverages, and merchandise that are In addition to the admission charge to the facility; and 3.) certain license and rental fees of luxury suites, boxes, or similar products at a
,an 7,500 persons. The provisions of S.B. 266 also make other changes to the types of activities that are included or excluded from the tax base as live entertainment events subject to the 9% tax rate.
,er 1, 2015. The amounts shown reflect the estimated net change from the provisions of S.B. 266 an the amount of the LET collected from the portion administered by the Gaming Control Board and the
lmbined Impact. The changes to the LET are estimated to reduce LET-Gaming collections by $19,165,000 in FY 2016 and by $26,551,000 In FY 2017, but increase LET-Nongamlng collections by
=y 2017. The combined net effect on total LET collections Is estimated to be reduction of $3,682,000 In FY 2016 and $1,238,000 in FY 2017.
n annual tax an each business entity engaged In business In the state whose Nevada gross revenue in a fiscal year exceeds $4,000,000 at a tax rate based on the Industry in which the business is
eon or before the 45th day Immediately following the fiscal year taxable period (June 3Dth). Although the Commerce Tax collections are received after the June 3Dth end of the fiscal year tax period, the
rued back and accounted for in that fiscal year, since that fiscal year Is not officially closed until the third Friday in September. The Commerce Tax provisions are effective July 1, 2015, for the purpose
1ess, but the first tax payment will not be made until August 14, 2016, for the FY 2016 annual taxable business activity period.
ax by the Nevada Transportation Authority or the Taxicab Authority, as applicable, an the connection of a passenger to a driver affiliated with a transportation network company, a common motor carrier
l fare charged to the passenger. The excise tax becomes effective on passage and approval (May 29, 2015) for transportation network companies and August 28, 2015, for common motor carrier and
,x proceeds from each biennium are required to be deposited in the Slate Highway Fund and the estimate for FY 2016 reflects this requirement.
of 20 by $1.00 from 80 cents per pack (10 cents to Local Government Distribution Fund, 70 cents to State General Fund) to $1.80 per pack (10 cents to Local Government Distribution Fund, $1. 70 to
rhe $1.00 per pack Increase Is estimated to generate $96,872,000 In FY 2016 and $95,391,000 in FY 2017.
md tax rate for the Modified Business Tax on General Business (nonfinanclal Institutions) by exempting quarterly taxable wages (gross wages less allowable health care expenses) paid by an employer
·quarter and taxable wages exceeding $50,000 per quarter are taxed at 1.475%. The taxable wages exemption threshold was $85,000 per quarter for FY 2014 and FY 2015 with a 1.17% tax rate an
lased on S.B. 475 (2013). These provisions In S.B. 475 were scheduled to sunset effective June 30, 2015, at which time the tax rate would have been 0.63% on all taxable wages per quarter. The
15. The estimated net increase In MBT-NFI tax collections from the 1.475% tax rate an quarterly taxable wages exceeding $50,000 compared to the Economic Forum May 1, 2015, forecast, based on
ges before accounting for the estimated impact of any other legislatively approved changes to the MBT-NFI Is $268,041,000 for FY 2016 and $281,443,000 for FY 2017.
lloyee leasing company to be the employer of the employees ii leases for the purposes of NRS Chapter 612 (unemployment compensation). Under these provisions, the wages of employees leased
lmpanies will no longer be reported on an aggregated basis under the employee leasing company. The wages of the employees will now be reported on a disaggregated basis under each client
,emption applying to the employee leasing company, it will now apply to each client company. These provisions are effective October 1, 2015. The wages paid to employees being reported on a
versus an aggregated basis for the employee leasing company Is estimated to reduce MBT-NFI collections by $2,758,000 in FY 2016 and $3,861,000 In FY 2017.
et Proceeds of Minerals (NPM) tax in NRS Chapter 362 to pay a 2.0% tax an all quarterly taxable wages paid by the employer to the employees, which Is Identical to the Modified Business Tax (MBT)
ter 363A. These provisions are effective July 1, 2015. This change is estimated to reduce MBT-NFI tax collections by $10,884,000 in both FY 2016 and FY 2017. The mining companies paying the 2%
generate $17,353,000 In both FY 2016 and FY 2017 for the MBT·Mlnlng. This change is estimated to yield a net Increase In General Fund revenue of $6,469,000 in both FY 2016 and FY 2017.
:ial institution" in NRS Chapter 363A any person who is primarily engaged In the sale, solicitation, or negotiation of Insurance, which makes such a person subject to the Modified Business Tax on
NRS Chapter 363B at 1.475% an quarterly taxable wages exceeding $50,000 and not the 2.0% tax on all quarterly taxable wages. These provisions are effective July 1, 2015. MBT·FI is estimated to
i,000 and the MBT-NFI is estimated to be increased by $278,000 In FY 2016 and $291,000 in FY 2017. The net decrease In General Fund revenue Is estimated to be $613,000 In FY 2016 and $645,000
rns's Modified Business Tax (MBT) due during the current fiscal year not to exceed 50% of the Commerce Tax paid by the business for the preceding fiscal year. The credit can be taken against any or
current fiscal year, but any amount of credit not used cannot be carried forward and used In succeeding fiscal years. The total estimated Commerce Tax credits against the MBT are estimated to be
edit amount was not allocated separately to the MBT-NFI, MBT-FI, and MBT-Mining.
~
J
FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021
FY 2016
ACTUAL
%
Change
FY 2017
ACTUAL
%
Change
FY 2018
ACTUAL
%
Change _ I' FORECAST %
Change
FORECAST %
Change
FORECAST
1the portion of the Governmental Services Tax (GST) generated from the 10% depreciation schedule change, approved In S.B. 429 (2009), to be allocated to the State General Fund In FY 2016.
%
Change
:aled to the State General Fund and 50% to the State Highway Fund. Under S.B. 483, 100% of the additional revenue generated from the GST 10% depreciation schedule change is required to be
ng In FY 2018 and going forward permanently.
1iness License Fee (BLF) from $100 to $200 permanent for the Initial and annual renewal, that was scheduled to sunset on June 30, 2015, (as approved In A.13. 475 (2013)) for all types of businesses,
31 renewal fee for corporations, as specified In S.B. 483, Is increased from $200 to $500 permanently. These provisions are effective July 1, 2015. The changes to the BLF are estimated to generate
000 In FY 2016 and $64,338,000 In FY 2017 In relation ct the Economic Forum May 1, 2015, forecast with all business types paying a $100 annual fee.
ing the initial and annual 11st of directors and officers by $25 that Is required to be paid by each business entity organizing under the various chapters in Title 7 of the NRS, effective July 1, 2015. The $25
is estimated to Increase Commercial Recordings Fee revenue by $2,751,000 in FY 2016 and $2,807,000 In FY 2017.
, 12 months and the renewal period from 48 to 24 months for a license as a real estate broker, broker-salesperson, or salesperson and also changes the period for other licenses from 48 to 24 months,
id before July 1, 2015, do not need to be renewed until the expiration date required under statute prior to July 1, 2015. This change in the licensing period Is estimated to reduce Real Estate License Fee
14,200 in FY 2017.
l on the gross receipts from admission charges to unarmed combat events, that is dedicated to the State General Fund, by 2% to 8% with 75% of the proceeds from the 8% fee deposited In the State
tic Commission to fund the agency's operations. A.B. 476 repeals the two-tiered fee based on the revenues from the sale or lease of broadcast, television and motion picture rights that Is dedicated to the
mater of an unarmed combat event a credit against the 8% license fee equal to the amount paid to the Athletic Commission or organization sanctioned by the Commission to administer a drug testing
>visions are effective June 9, 2015, based on the passage and approval effective date provisions of A.B. 476. These changes are estimated to reduce Athletic Commission Fee revenue by $600,000 In
plication or renewals paid by developers for exemptions to any provisions administered by the Real Estate Division of the Department of Business and Industry, and requires that all fees collected for this
/ 1, 2015. This requirement for the Division to keep these fees is estimated to reduce Real Estate Land Company filing fees by approximately $152,600 in FY 2016 and $153,300 in FY 2017.
he commission retained by the Department of Motor Vehicles from the amount of Governmental Services Tax (GST) collected and any penalties for delinquent payment of the GST to be transferred to
. 491 specified that the amount transferred shall not exceed $20,813,716 from commissions and $4,097,964 from penalties In FY 2015. A.B, 490 amended the commissions amount to $23,724,000 and
ults in an estimated net increase In General Fund revenue of $3,849,320 In FY 2015 from GST Commissions and Penalties.
·om Court Administrative Assessment Fees to be deposited In the State General Fund (pursuant lo subsection 9 of NRS 176.059), based on the legislatively approved projections and the authorized
rnent Fee revenues (pursuantto subsection 8 of NRS 176.059) for FY 2016 and FY 2017.
ved during the 2015 Legislative Session.
::nterprlse Information Technology Services of the Department of Administration to use revenues from intergovernmental transfers to the State General Fund for the repayment of special appropriations
ment of the state's microwave communications system. The legislatively approved repayment from the Division to the State General Fund Is $57,900 per year between FY 2018 and FY 2021, with
FY 2028.
he portion of the Governmental Services Tax (GST) generated from the 10% depreciation schedule change, approved In S.B. 429 (2009), to be allocated to the State General Fund In FY 2018 and FY
e State Highway Fund. Under A.B. 486, 100% of the additional revenue generated from the GST 10% depreciation schedule change is required to be deposited in the State Highway Fund beginning in
.imated to generate $19,367,000 In FY 2018 and $19,573,500 In FY 2019.
ialn permits relating to the usage of piers, docks, buoys, or other facilities on navigable bodies of water In this state from NRS 322.120, and Instead requires that the State Land Registrar of the Division
,!ion and Natural Resources establish these fees by regulation, effective July 1, 2017. The bill requires that the first $65,000 of the proceeds from these permit fees be deposited In the State General
1excess of $65,000 to be used by the State Land Registrar to carry out programs to preserve, protect, restore, and enhance the natural environment of the Lake Tahoe Basin.
,y the State Engineer of the Division of Water Resources of the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources relating to services for the adjudication and appropriation of water be deposited In the
,3,467,000 per year In FY2018and FY 2019.
•ed by the Securities Division of the Secretary of State's Office be deposited in the State General Fund, instead of the Secretary of State's Office's operating budget, effective July 1, 2017. Estimated to
and FY 2019.
om Court Administrative Assessment Fees to be deposited In the State General Fund (pursuant to subsection 9 of NRS 176.059), based on the legislatively approved projections and the authorized
men! Fee revenues (pursuant to subsection 8 of NRS 176.059) for FY 2018 and FY 2019. Estimated to generate $1,328,228 in FY 2018 and $1,080,780 In FY 2019.
1mount Included In the Legislature Approves budget after the May 1, 2017, approval of the General Fund revenue forecast by the Economic Forum.
,n of a question on the November 2018 General Election ballot seeking approval to amend the Sales and Use Tax Act of 1955 to provide an exemption from the State 2% sales and use tax for certain
on was approved by the voters and, therefore, the sales tax exemption for these products will be effective January 1, 2019, until December 31, 2028.
on Is approved by the voters, identical exemptions for these products from the Local School Support Tax and other state and local taxes would become effective January 1, 2019, and would also expire
ill reduce the amount of the commission that is kept by the Department of Taxation and deposited In the State General Fund for collection of these taxes.
l appropriations of $497,625 in FY 2018 and $306,690 in FY 2019 to the Division of Enterprise Information Technology Services of the Department of Administration to enhance the state's cyber security
1ent of these appropriations Is 25 percent of the amounts appropriated per year, beginning in FY 2019 (for the FY 2018 appropriation) and in FY 2020 (for the FY 2019 appropriation).
nd appropriation of $1,998,895 In FY 2018 to the Division of Enterprise Information Technology Services of the Department of Administration to increase the bandwidth and connectivity of the State's
j repayment of this appropriation is 25 percent of the amount appropriated per year, beginning in FY 2019.
!IC FORUM'S FORECAST FOR FY 2019, FY 2020, AND FY 2021 APPROVED AT THE MAY 1, 2019, MEETING
~
J
FY 2016 % FY 2017 % FY 2018 %
II FY 2019
FORECAST %
FY 2020
FORECAST %
FY 2021
FORECAST %
ACTUAL Change ACTUAL Change ACTUAL Change _ Change Change Change
lLATURE
)!flee of Economic Development (GOED) could Issue up to $20 million per fiscal year for a total of $80 million for the four-year pilot program In transferrable tax credits that may be used against the
·ax, and Gaming Percentage Fee Tax. The provisions of the film tax credit program were amended in S.B. 1 (28th Special Session (2014)) to reduce the total amount of the tax credits that may be
Ilion per year In film tax credits may be awarded by GOED beginning in FY 2018, in addition to any remaining amounts from S.B. 1 of the 28th Special Session (2014). Any portion of the $10 million per
1be carried forward and made available during the next or any future fiscal year. The amounts shown for FY 2019, FY 2020, and FY 2021 are based on information provided by GOED.
14)), for certain qualifying projects, the Governor's Office of Economic Development (GOED) is required to issue transferrable tax credits that may be used against the Modified Business Tax, Insurance
ee Tax. The amount of transferrable tax credits are equal to $12,500 for each qualified employee employed by the participants in the project, to a maximum of 6,000 employees, plus 5 percent of the first
le made collectively by the participants in the qualifying project, plus an additional 2.8 percent of the next $2.5 billion in new capital investment in the State made collectively by the participants in the
lOED may not exceed $45 million per fiscal year (though any unissued credits may be issued in subsequent fiscal years), and GOED may not issue total credits in excess of $195 million. The amounts
n information provided by GOED.
15)), for certain qualifying projects, the Governor's Office of Economic Development (GOED) is required to issue transferrable tax credits that may be used against the Modified Business Tax, Insurance
ee Tax. The amount of transferrable tax credits are equal to $9,500 for each qualified employee employed by the participants In the project, to a maximum of 4,000 employees. The amount of credits
Ion per fiscal year (though any unissued credits may be Issued in subsequent fiscal years), and GOED may not Issue total credits In excess of $38 million. The forecasts for FY 2019, FY 2020, and FY
these provisions, as there are currently no qualifying projects receiving these credits.
I Markets Jobs Act allows insurance companies to receive a credit against the tax imposed on Insurance premiums in exchange for making qualified equity Investments in community development
1inority-owned. A total of $200 million in qualified equity Investments may be certified by the Department of Business and Industry. In exchange for making the qualified equity investment, Insurance
.Inst the Insurance Premium Tax In an amount equal to 58 percent of the total qualified equity Investment that Is certified by the Department. The credits may be taken in Increments beginning on the
men!, as follows:
ent of the qualified investment
en! of the qualified Investment
en! of the qualified investment
:e companies were allowed to begin taking tax credits In the third quarter of FY 2015. The amounts shown for FY 2019 and FY 2020 reflect estimates of the amount of tax credits that will be taken in
d by the Department of Business and Industry and the Department ofTaxation.
flee of Economic Development (GOED) to approve transferrable tax credits that may be used against the Modified Business Tax, Insurance Premium Tax, and Gaming Percentage Fee Tax to new or
1lc development of Nevada. As approved in S.B. 507, the total amount oftransferrable tax credits that may be issued Is $500,000 In FY 2016, $2,000,000 In FY 2017, and $5,000,000 for FY 2018 and
uced the total amount of transferrable tax credits that may be issued by GOED to zero In FY 2016, $1 million In FY 2017, $2 mill Ion per year In FY 2018 and FY 2019, and $3 million In FY 2020. For FY
edits that may be issued by GOED remains at $5 million per year. The amount shown for FY 2019 reflects estimates of actual and forecast credits that have been issued or will be issued In that fiscal
l. The amounts shown for FY 2020 and FY 2021 are based on the maximum amount that can be Issued in each fiscal year.
lonations of money to certain scholarship organizations to receive a dollar-for-dollar credit against the taxpayer's liability for the Modified Business Tax (MBT). The total amount of credits that may be
1artment) is $5 million in FY 2016, $5.5 million in FY 2017, and 11 O percent of the total amount of credits authorized in the previous year, for all subsequent fiscal years. The amounts shown reflect the
al amount authorized for each fiscal year will be donated to a qualified scholarship organization and taken as credits against the MBT. ·
million in credits against the MBT under this program in Fiscal Year 2018 beyond those that were authorized in FY 2018 based on the provisions of A.B. 165 (2015). Any amount of the $20 million in
t may be Issued In future fiscal years. The forecast for FY 2019 is based on the amount of this $20 million that was awarded In FY 2018, but not used against the MBT In that fiscal year, plus the
ased on the statutory formula adopted in A.B. 165 (2015). The forecasts for FY 2020 and FY 2021 are based on the maximum amount of annual credits allowed based on the statutory formula in A.B.
:he Modified Business Tax (MBT) to certain employers who match the contribution of an employee to one of the college savings plans offered through the Nevada Higher Education Prepaid Tuition
igram authorized under existing law. The amount of the tax credit is equal to 25 percent of the matching contribution, not to exceed $500 per contributing employee per year, and any unused credits
slons relating to the Nevada College Savings Program are effective January 1, 2016, and the Higher Education Prepaid Tuition Program are effective July 1, 2016. The amounts shown are estimates
er's Office on enrollment and contributions for the college savings plans.
EXHIBIT G
Senate Bill No. 542-Committee on Finance
CHAPTER......... .
AN ACT relating to technology fees; extending the imposition of a
technology fee on certain transactions by the Department of
Motor Vehicles; and providing other matters properly
relating tliereto.
Legislative Counsel's Digest:
Existing law requires the Department of Motor Vehicles to impose a
nonrefundable technology fee of $1 to the existing fee for any transaction
performed by the Department for which a fee is charged. The technology fee must
be used to pay the expenses associated with implementing, upgrading and
maintaining the platform of information technology used by the Department. (NRS
481.064) Under existing law, the requirement to impose this fee is set to expire on
June 30, 2020. Section 1 of this bill extends the imposition of this fee until June 30,
2022.
EXPLANATION - Matter in balded italics is new; matter between brackets ten,i!H,a--ma!fflftlj is material to be omitted.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, REPRESENTED IN

SENATE AND ASSEMBLY, DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Section 7 of chapter 394, Statutes of Nevada 2015,

at page 2213, is hereby amended to read as follows:
Sec. 7. This act becomes effective on July 1, 2015, and
expires by limitation on June 30, [2020.J 2022.
Sec, 2. This act becomes effective upon passage and approval.
20 - - 19
80th Session (2019)

Two-Thirds Lawsuit - Motion To Dismiss

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Two-Thirds Lawsuit - Motion To Dismiss

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

1 AARON D.

2 assessments and rates."

9 branch to the People.2

11 II. LEGAL ANALYSIS

28 memorandum is attached hereto as Exhibit C.

22 specifically including public education.

5 be inapplicable by its terms. 6 If the Economic Forum underestimated revenues relative to

3 Nevada is not alone when attempting to interpret similar supermajority provisions.

11 Nev. Const. art. IV, § 18(2).

19 1153 (Okla. 2017).

7 Nevada courts construe statutes, if reasonably possible, so as to be in harmony with

3 contain the social security number of any person.

7 D Senate Bill 551 as enrolled 33

Fiscal Note: Effect on Local Government: No. Effeot on the

03/05 25Read first time. Refer~ed to committee on

R~ferred to Committee on Taxation

tXl'Z.NM.TION-Mtll1r In /Ioli&:< ff new: m~lltr In brntkm / J ,s mo1,MI t~ be onullcd

ASSEMBLY JOINT RESOLUTION-Proposing to amend the constitution of thr.i Sta10 of

The Assembly Committee on Taxation was ca.lJ.ed to otcter by

COMMITTEE M»lMBERS PRESENT,

COMMITTEE MmMBBRS ABSENT,

ML, Ted Zuend, Deputy Fiscal Analyst, Legislative Counsel

James L. Wadhams, r;-epreaenting the American Insurance

Vice Chairman Williams closed the hearing on AB 331,

government and the incentives in government were skewed against

majority in each house. In Oklahoma the constitution required

approve the funding mechanism, Mr. Gibbons said his research

Williams said there were always people who wel:'e rer,31stent to

Steve Stucker, Laughlin Associates, Inc., spoke in favor of AJR

employees in Nevada. Those businesses and the people that

new ~esidents generated the ~evenue commensurate with moving in,

HEARING DATE: May 4, 1993

SlJMi«ARY--Proposes to amend Nevada constitution to require two-thirds majority of

AB 685 34 7 0 81.0 21 0 0 100.0

1989 ASSEl*lLY 1989 SENATE

1987 ASSEMBLY 1987 SEW\TE

1986 ASSE!i8LY 1985 SEIIATE

1983 ASSalllY 1983 SENATE

A8 371 4Q 2 0 95,t 21 0 0 100.0

The Assembly Committee on Taxation was called to orcter by

GOl!fflITTlllE MEMBERS PRESENT:

~01';{MIT~EE MEMBERS ABSENT:

GUmST LEGISLATOBS PRESEN'r:

Following roll call, Chairman Price opened the he$r1ng on AB

the committee would hot discuss the casino entertainment ta:x

A compilation or ballot questlons wbkh' will appear

I. The Sales and Use Tax . . . • . • . . . . . • . . . . . . • • . . • . . . . . . . . • , . . • . 2 Percent

CONDENSATION (ballot question)

ARGUMENTS FOR PASSAGE

ARGUMENTS AGAINST PASSAGE

~on l1, ra,e l

. The people ot the State of Nevada do enact as foUows:

Qut$tlon 11, Pag«, 2

The tax includes:

1. The st.ate Sales and Use Tax • • . • . . . . • • • . . . 2.00 Percent

CONDENSATION {ballot question)

Yes 3. P.G 3 B..).__ . IZJ

ARGUMENTS FOR PASSAGE

ARGUMENTS AGAINST PASSAGE

Question 11, Page 1

FULL TEXT OF THE l\1EASURE

The people ot the State of Nevada do enact as follows:

Question 11, Page 2